I’ll begin with the more easily dismissed proposal, which is the NRA’s plan to place taxpayer funded armed guards in all public schools nationwide. There is little doubt that placing an armed guard inside a school would likely cause a would-be shooter to think twice about opening fire, in the same way that placing an armed soldier inside everyone’s house would probably discourage a burglary, or wearing a helmet 24 hours a day would reduce your chances of a head injury. The NRA proposal would create yet another vast theft-funded state army, not to mention the atmospheric effect it would have on schools. Fostering a culture of fear – and dependency on government for safety – is something any friend of liberty should oppose. Public schools resemble prisons more and more every day, we need not further this transformation in exchange for safety, real or perceived.

The statistics also do not favor this idea. There is no upward trend in mass shootings rendering the plan to put armed guards in schools a massive misallocation of time, money, and effort to combat a non-existent “trend.” Overall, violent crime, and gun crime, have seen a precipitous drop over the last 20 years even as gun control laws, such as the federal assault weapons ban, have expired. On top of that, you are still far, far more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer, even if you are unarmed, than by a mass-shooter at a school, theater, or any other area.

The NRA plan is in short, complete bunk.

On the other side of the argument, we have the familiar gun control advocates, claiming that further laws and regulations are needed to prevent such tragedies from occurring again. This claim is not only false, but also lies in direct contradiction with the principles of liberty and the intended purpose of the second amendment.

First of all, there is the same information pointed out above to dismiss the NRA’s plan; there is no upward trend of mass shootings, and violent crime of all kinds is continuing to fall. Therefore the gun-control lobby is attempting to fix a “problem” that appears to be fixing itself despite the absence of more laws and regulations. Gun control advocates have consistently failed to demonstrate exactly how more restrictions would make us safer. In regards to the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut already had some of the most stringent anti-gun laws in the United States, yet the tragedy still occurred. Columbine took place during the height of federal anti-gun laws being in effect. The most destructive mass shootings in US history have taken place in “gun-free zones,” a hallmark accomplishment of the gun-control lobby that has proven thus far to embolden would-be shooters and disarm those who could potentially defend themselves.

The plans forwarded so far by pro-gun-control advocates in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy yet again fail to demonstrate how such proposals would deter further mass shootings. The proposals include: a federal firearms registry, closing the so-called “gun show loophole,” preventing the sale of firearms between private individuals, magazine capacity limits, and – laughably – increasing the punishment for carrying a firearm in gun-free zones (It bears mentioning that the recent Clackamas mall shooter, after initially opening fire and killing two people, was challenged by a legal gun owner with a conceal and carry permit and subsequently retreated and took his own life once he was confronted). I would challenge even the most ardent gun-control advocate to demonstrate to me how any of the above would have prevented the Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine massacres. In all of these shootings, the guns were either acquired illegally (Sandy Hook and Columbine) or purchased legally (Aurora and Virginia Tech) by the perpetrators — all of whom had no prior criminal history, thus no waiting period or background check, however far reaching, could have stopped the acquisition of their guns — weeks, months, or years before the shootings. The deadliest of the shooters, Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, used two pistols with standard size clips to murder 32 people. In other words, none of the aforementioned regulations could have stopped a suicidal maniac from committing these crimes.

Secondly, completely banning firearms does not necessarily correlate with a drop in violent crime, or even gun crime. Chicago enacted a sweeping ban on handguns and has seen their violent and gun related crime increase, culminating in 500 homicides in 2012, the highest since 2008. Washington D.C. enacted a similar ban on guns in 1976, and saw their murder rate increase an average of 73% while the national average dropped 11%. But what about places like Great Britain and Australia, who banned guns years ago? It’s an undeniable fact that more people are killed with guns in the United States than in Britain or Australia. However, overall violent crime has increased in Australia and Great Britain remains staggeringly violent, with a violent crime rate of 2,034 incidences per 100,000 people, worse than South Africa, and far ahead of the US with a rate of 466 per 100,000 and dropping; lower even than Canada. Therefore you can reasonably conclude that the banning of firearms does not make us more peaceful or even safer. In fact, of the five deadliest non-war related massacres in US history (in order: 9/11, Oklahoma City Bombing, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Bath School Bombing, 1962 Continental Flight 11 bombing) only the 1854 Mountain Meadows Massacre involved guns when a Utah militia ambushed a wagon train and killed up to 140 people. Even the deadliest school-related massacre in history, in Bath, Michigan, involved home made explosives.

While it is true that gun crime specifically dropped in Britain and Australia when their bans were enacted, there are also examples in countries like Switzerland and Finland where gun ownership is relatively high, that have even lower gun crime rates than countries with strict restrictions on guns. There are also many states such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Iowa that have very high rates of gun ownership but roughly the same amount of gun crime as the UK or Australia. If you were to look at all the statistics in a scientific way, detached from emotion, you would see that there is simply no conclusive evidence that restricting/banning guns equals less crime. To suggest otherwise simply displays a confirmation bias. Outside of disinventing guns, more restrictions or bans will not prevent violence.

Thirdly, there is the issue of the second amendment. While I have my own issues with the constitution as a voluntaryist – I view it as a well-intended failure that has been used to legitimize the state and its inherent violence — there have been the familiar croons from the gun control lobby indicating that the founders never envisioned assault rifles and the like, that the second amendment only refers to the military or uses like hunting and other sport. There is of course no historical basis for any of these claims. The second amendment was written by a group of men who had just fought a long and bloody war against their government, and an armed citizenry was key in their victory. The 2nd amendment exists as a further check on government power. It exists in case the people must once again fight their government to reject tyranny. It is well and good for a gun control advocate to suggest that if you are in danger you can just call the police, but who do you call when you need protection from the police or other government agents?

I’ll end with some musings on the actions of our political class of late and the disgusting irony on display. We have Diane Feinstein calling for strict legislation. Ironic since she once publicly claimed she needed her concealed pistol for protection and continues to have armed security to this day, yet would gladly remove that right from ordinary Americans.

I have watched both of President Obama’s recent speeches regarding the Sandy Hook massacre and gun control. I am not one who buys the argument that we must refrain from discussion on a particular topic due to a recent tragedy, so I won’t criticize the President on his timing as some in the pro-gun lobby have. I will however point it out for what it was: a creepy, contemptible, bald-faced play on the fears and emotions of the public to advance an agenda. I could not help but be reminded of many of Bush’s speeches after 9/11 which were used to forward dubious actions such as the Patriot Act, torture and rendition, and two bloody and unnecessary wars. Reactionary politics are typically the most destructive. It is the height of irony to watch a man, through crocodile tears, bemoan the deaths of those killed at Sandy Hook and Aurora yet oversee and approve military strikes that result in the deaths of far more children abroad committing tragedies on the scale of Sandy Hook roughly every 10 days. He approved the assassination of at least two American citizens with no due process including a 16-year old child, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. President Obama said in one of his speeches regarding the victims of Sandy Hook that they: “”had their entire lives ahead of them – birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.” Apparently Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was to be denied these things, for a “crime” that the United States has refused to define or provide evidence.

Excuse me if I am skeptical of a proven mass-murderer’s call to restrict our freedoms.

This past Friday I finally received my Google Nexus 4 in the mail. It was a day of high anticipation as I have been using my old phone for about 3.5 years. My old phone, for those who are not long time readers, was a Palm Pre which I purchased day 1 from Sprint. It was the running gag around town whenever I pulled out my lovely Pre.

I love webOS and I loved my Palm Pre. No it didn’t have a giant screen, a million apps in the marketplace, or hardware made out of chiseled aluminum, but it did have the smoothest UI I have ever used and functionality that many other smartphones didn’t have until later.

I watched Palm fall apart and the HP Touchpad debacle was the final nail in the coffin for any hope of future webOS products. I watched the mass exodus from Palm with a keen insight to where Matias Duarte would land. See Matias was in charge of the user experience for the Pre which I loved so much. He headed over to Google to head up the Android line and thus so did my eyes.

My experiences with Android were always clunky compared to the Pre. Things that were easy to do on the Pre were always a couple more steps on iOS or Android. However, over time Matias’s work started to shine through. When Jelly Bean was released in July of 2012 I knew Android was finally up to snuff for the user experience to make the switch.

I was ready to jump on the Galaxy Nexus at the enticing price of $350, but it was 9 months old and I knew a new Nexus would be coming soon. So I dug into my patience pocket and waited and waited. Based on all the rumors surrounding the Nexus 4, I was ready to buy it review unseen.

The review

So, what did I get myself into? Is the Nexus 4 worthy buy? Is Jelly Bean a good substitute for webOS. In a word, yes. Now I’m not going to spend the rest of this article talking about the pixel density of the screen, what type of antennas, or the weight and shape of the device. For that I recommend The Verge’s review. My review will be from a consumer’s perspective who likes to be cutting edge – but doesn’t like paying for it.

As of December 11th, 2012, the Google Nexus 4 is the best phone on the market and the one you should buy without a moment of hesitation. The tangible aspects of the phone are on par, above, or slightly below the competition. The screen is glorious, HSPA+ provides fast speeds, and the phone feels of high quality.

Where the Nexus 4 outshines the competition is the unsubsidized price of $299 & $349 respectively. For reference the iPhone 5 16gb is $649, the Galaxy SIII is $600, Nokia Lumina 920 is $700. These are all flagship devices for the respective devices.

Now this is where you say, “Hey I can get it much cheaper if I sign a 2 year contract” and you’d be right – sorta. See, the simple fact is that you are paying for the price of the phone but it’s baked into your contract. In addition to being locked into a contract and paying higher monthly fees, you also are at the carriers whims for upgrades of the software.

This my friends, is where the Nexus 4 is revolutionary. What Google is doing is shifting consumers away from long contract plans where the carriers have the control, to a model where consumers are in control. The Nexus 4 is about freedom and control. If you want to travel globally, you don’t need to get permission from some company and their arbitrary rules – you just go there and get a new sim card. If you want the latest version of the OS on your phone, you don’t wait for your carrier to add bloatware and send the upgrade – you do it your self.

By purchasing your phone outright you now can switch carriers any damn time you want. No contract fees, no headaches, just simple this company’s plan works best for me. With more competition and easier movement from customers we will see prices begin to drop and more options to fight for our dollars. Capitalism in action, baby!

So, I purchased a Straight Talk sim card which piggy backs on the T-Mobile infrastructure. Straight Talk is an MNVO that leases bandwidth from traditional cell phone companies. The Straight Talk plan is for unlimited* texts, minutes, and data. Unlimited is a touchy subject, because if you start to hinder the performance of their network they’ll cut you off. I looked back on my Sprint data usage and it’s typically under 2gb per month which I hear is the magic mark for data usage. Assuming you aren’t abusing their bandwidth your performance should be fine.

Speaking of performance, I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the HSPA+. As you can see from the screenshot I get about 15Mbps down which is twice as fast as my home network which is about 7Mbps down. The common complaint about the Nexus 4 is the lack of LTE, but to be honest, I personally can’t complain with anything faster than my home internet speeds. At 15Mbps I won’t have any problems loading maps for navigation, watching videos on YouTube, or streaming music from Pandora. I have no idea what you would needed higher speeds for on a mobile phone – it’s not like you will be downloading giant torrents.

Speaking of LTE on the Nexus 4, it is actually built into the phone and can be unlocked via a simple hack. You just dial: *#*#4636#*#* and go into the “Phone information” and from that screen you will select “LTE/GSM/CDMA auto (PRL)” from the pull down menu. This is for LTE Band 4 and not available on all carriers or locations, thus they are not marketing as having LTE.

On Sprint, my wife and I were paying $125/month for two lines, 1400 minutes, unlimited data and texting. That was after taxes and after the corporate discount. If we had decided to stay on Sprint and renew our contract that price would have gone up to $145 because of a rate increase. On Straight Talk our monthly bill is $100/month after taxes for unlimited data, text, and minutes. Similar plans on T-Mobile plan would be about $145 after taxes & discounts. AT&T and Verizon aren’t even close to those prices. So we are saving $45/month or $540/year.

By going with this plan I have more incentive to not get pulled into consumerism and always purchase the latest greatest phone. The longer I go without buying a new phone the more money I save. By purchasing a phone which isn’t tied into the carriers whims it will also be updated for a longer timeframe and thus be more relevant.

Final Verdict

If you are in a market for a new phone, there is no reason you should purchase anything other than the Nexus 4 and it’s time to unstrap the chains of the carriers. This is your step toward phone freedom!

Current navigation bar

My version for the navigation bar

The thing is they have too many redundant links and could be using icons where they are using text. Take a look at the modifications I’ve made to the navigation bar to give a better experience for the user.

1) Eliminated the top grey bar and relocated relevant information
2) Simplified the search bar and removed the pull down menu and advanced button
3) Removed “Connections” and “Inbox” and replaced them with icons
4) Connection icon (green plus) would have a drop down menu which allows you to access all information currently listed. *note, I would probably settle on something other than a plus for the icon
5) My name would now contain navigation to edit my profile
6) LinkedIn logo would have a menu which currently resides under the “Home” link
7) Added an Upgrade button

What are y’alls thoughts? Would you rather have a smaller, more condensed navigation bar? Or do you think the current setup is easier to use?

Holy shit, words cannot accurately describe how badass this song is. So awesome, I’m going to end my previous sentence in a preposition. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis sing about going thrift store shopping and finding some kick stuff from previous generations. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis just released their latest album The Heist which is specially packaged in alligator leather with artwork from a variety of artists to represent each song.

Less talking, more music – enjoy!

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis – Thrift Shop (feat. Wanz) Lyrics

Wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, wha…

I’m gunna pop some tags
Only got 20$ in my pocket
I-i-im hunttin lookin for a dolla
This is fucking awesome

Walk inta the club like what up i got a big cock
Im so pumped i bought some shit from a thrift shop
Ica and the fringe are so damn faughsty
The people like damn thats a cold ass honkey
Rollin in hella deep headed to the mezanine
Dressed in all pink cept’ my gator shoes those are green draped in a leopard mink girls standin next to me
Probably shoulda washed this it smells like R. Kellys sheets pissssssssss
But shit it was 99 cents
If i get caught in it washin it
Bout to go and get some compliments passin off in those mochassins
Someone else has been walkin in but me and grungie fuck em in
I am stuck in a closet
Savin my money and im hella happy thats a bargain bitch ima take it grandpa style
No for real i asked your grandpa if i could have his hand-me-downs
The lords jump suit and some house slippers doukie brown leather jacket that i found diggin
They had a broken keyboard i bought a broken keyboard
I bought a ski blanket then i bout and e board
Hello hello my ace man my mello
John Wayne aint got nothin on my friends game
Hello!
I can take some pro wings make em cool sell those
The sneaker heads will be like
Ahhh he got the velcro

I’m gunna pop some tags
Only got 20$ in my pocket
I-i-im hunttin lookin for a dolla
This is fucking awesome
I’m gunna pop some tags
Only got 20$ in my pocket
I-i-im hunttin lookin for a dolla
This is fucking awesome

Whatcha know bout rockin the wolf on your nogin
Whatcha knowin about wearin a fur fox skin
Im diggin Im diggin im searchin right through that luggage
One mans trash thats another mans come up
Thinkin grand dad were donating that plaid button up shirt cause right now im up he in stature
I’m at the Goodwill you can find me in the
I’m not im not I’m not searchin in that section
Your Grammy your aunts your momma you mammy
Ill take those flannel zebra jammies secondhand i rock that mothafucka
They built a onesie with the socks on the mothafucka
I hit the part in that they stopped that mothafucka
They be like oh! thats goofy thats hella tight. im like Yo! thats 50$ for a t-shirt limited edition lets to some simple editions 50$ for a t-shirt for some ingnorant bitch
I call that getting swindled and perished
I call that getting strict by a buisness
That shirts hella dope and i bliss im one in 6 other people in this club its a hella dome
Eat game come take a look through my telescope
Tryna get girls with my brand man you hella wont
Man you hella wont
Goodwill!

Im gunna pop some tags
Only got 20$ in my pocket
I-i-I’m hunttin lookin for a dolla
This is fucking awesome
I’ll wear your grand dads clothes
I look incredible
I’m in this big ass coat from that thrift shop down the road
i wear your grand dads clothes
I look incredible
I’m in this big ass coat from that thrift shop down the road
I’m gunna pop some tags
Only got 20$ in my pocket
I-i-im hunttin lookin for a dolla
This is fucking awesome

In Larken Rose’s book The Most Dangerous Superstition he touches base on this point. Please take the 5 minutes needed to read this short article.

[source]

“The Myth of Consent” (TMDS pp. 15-17)
There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another. The first can be labeled “consent” — both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done. The second can be labeled “governing” — one person controlling another. Since these two — consent and governing — are opposites, the concept of “consent of the governed” is a contradiction. If there is mutual consent, it is not “government”; if there is governing, there is no consent. Some will claim that a majority, or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what “consent” means. It defies logic to say, “I give my consent for you to be robbed.” Yet that is the basis of the cult of “democracy”: the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not “consent of the governed”; it is forcible control of the governed, with the “consent” of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, “I agree to let you forcibly control me,” the moment the controller must force the “controllee” to do something, there is obviously no longer “consent.” Prior to that moment, there is no “governing” — only voluntary cooperation. Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: “I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not.”

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in “government” do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another, even more bizarre step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him,”By driving a car in this neighborhood on a Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “if you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent. To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue, logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.

Holy shit this song kicks ass. Crank up your volume and start rocking. I need to find a club that plays this so I can dance my pants off.

Icky Blossoms – Babes Lyrics

I saw there, in the rain, in the leather jacket, a killer babe
I told you so, so don’t you know, we’re the same, I’m a killer babe
Babes, …and chills, ever …, she was dancing, a killer babe
Back and forth, on the stage, can’t keep my eyes off, that killer babe

Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes
Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes
Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes
Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes

Babes, at every turn, where I go, with all that feet, it’s killer babes
Babes, don’t loose my eyes …and all that feet, are killer babes
Your lips are killer babe, your eyes are killer babe, … killer babe
You’re looking killer babe,
That girl is killing me, that… is killing me
And all my women know, we’re killer babes

Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes
Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes
Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes
Girls, girls, girls, women, women, are babes, killer babes

There are also ascensores which you can pay $.50 to get a ride to the top of the hill, and there are about 10 of those hidden around town. Valparaiso is quite frankly one of the coolest cities I have been to. It’s not something I can really describe accurately and I highly recommend y’all visit in your life time.

I’ll be posting some more photos of the stairways, cityscapes, and this cool functioning (but rundown) cementary. Stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy this incredible art.

123►

Hopefully, I’ve made your mouth whet with these photos. Come back daily for more photos and to read about our experiences.

123►

This song just released a couple of weeks ago by Dirty Projectors has a very cool vibe to it. When I hear it I just think it could be from a James Bond flick. Unfortunately, I can’t read hieroglyphics but I can assume it’s lyrics.

The Dirty Projects are from Brooklyn, NY and they consist of David Longstreth, Amber Coffman, Angel Deradoorian, Brian McOmber, Nat Baldwin, and Haley Dekle. Currently they are signed to Domino Records

Dirty Projectors – Gun Has No Trigger Lyrics

If you had looked, you might have just seen them
Stretched in the background
You’d see the oceans swell
And the mountains shook

You’d see a million colors
If you really looked
Now quick the night draws near
Her curtain spreads quicker
The safety’s off

But the gun has no trigger.
If you had looked, you’d be no one’s coward
Distance, justice, power
You’d glimpse the password

You wouldn’t need the book
You’d own both slave and master
If you just had looked
But now the banks all closed

And nothing gets bigger
The crowd will yell
But the gun has no trigger.
If you had looked, you might reconsider

Or just maybe you already have
They watch you sleeping
You watch their garbage cook
You’d weep a bowl of tears
If you had looked

But now the gate comes down
The pangs are growing dimmer
You hold a gun to your head
But the gun has no trigger.