Babies

To offset my usual cynicism and snark, here’s a movie trailer for a flick that actually looks like it might be worth $10 to see — and if you don’t smile after watching the clip, then you’re not human. Here’s to the hope that, no matter who you are, that when 2010 is over, you are happier, smarter, and more compassionate than you are today.

Speech suppression and sex

By J. DeVoy

Sex is the only reason anybody does anything.  Wars have been fought over women, great men have mutilated themselves over them, and men generally acquire money, power and status to increase their desirability and ability to obtain sex.  Sure, there’s the benefit of money, fame and the respect of the community, but traditionally sex has been part and parcel of high social standing.

Generally, men who have high standing, thus high desirability and many reproductive options, are the highest ranking males - alphas.  Some men are born this way.  For everyone else, there are tools to address three major areas that communicate alpha status: body language, psychosocial dominance (game), and status.

Starting with body language, this is a good example of alpha body positioning.

Note the arms calmly at the subject’s sides – not fidgeting or folded out of insecurity.  Moreover, the arms and shoulders are thrust slightly back, chest out, unafraid of a potential attack.  Legs are at shoulder width, with one foot pointed out at about 45 degrees.  As Roissy notes, this pose is nearly identical to Michelangelo’s David.

Beta body behavior is markedly different.

Note the chubby cheeks and deference to his woman.  His head is in her lap, for chrissakes!  Is this a leader of men?  Someone to be trusted with contentious and high-stakes legal matters?  No.

Another example:

Chuck Ross has previously discussed the unforgivable betatude of Eminem.  In this picture, he’s gripping his famously unfaithful wife, Kim, not once but twice, pulling her as close as he can.  These dual death grips symbolize his tenuous grip on Kim’s interest and need to hold on to her at all times, lest she jump onto some other man (again).  This also debunks the myth that outwardly successful men can’t be beta – yes, they can.

Next, there is the element of psychosocial dominance, commonly referred to as game.  Many people write about game and its application in practical, nuts-and-bolts and, most importantly, free fora across the internet.  Books, the best among them being The Mystery Method and Savoy’s Magic Bullets, have been written instructing men how to interact with others and project this dominance in all its forms.  At its core are two principles: be cool and interesting.

A similar system exists for women.  The most effective man-landing and keeping techniques I’ve ever seen are routinely discussed at Girl Game, which promotes the femininity of women, the importance of cooking, and the need for balance between affection and discretion.  This is superior to women who promote using sex alone as a way to land men, or using the dated, boner-killing “rules” promulgated by used up divorced harpies that drive away men faster than having the name Lorena Bobbitt.

Finally, and most importantly for young people, there is the issue of status.  Status is the most easily malleable of these factors for young people; they cannot unlearn years of feminization in private schools and higher education.  Similarly, they cannot grow several inches or develop facial symmetry without significant surgery.  Thus, people looking to expand their options look to increase their status through accumulating degrees, fame, money and other forms of social capital.

It’s no surprise to anyone that the United States is becoming more liberal.  The election of Barack Obama and the panoply of entitlements he rode in on, such as universal health care, is just another exhibit in the inexorable conclusion that each generation is more liberal than the last.  Among young unmarried people, liberal ideas are more popular than conservative ones, and hold the key to broad social acceptance.  Young people, especially young men, will flock to the liberal dogma of political correctness, diversity and environmentalism in order to enhance their social status.  As a result, fewer people will be able or inclined to discuss competing viewpoints on pressing issues, dismissing any discussion of them as racism, classism or ignorance, even when the facts upon which they rely are called into question.  Worse, these same isms may be invoked to shout down others’ discussion of social problems in the face of controversial and emergent science in areas like genetics.

The reason adopting liberal intolerance for discourse likely confers status is clear from the presidential election’s results – more than three quarters of unmarried women voters went for Obama.  Even men who decry and question the relevance of the alpha/beta distinction are likely to fall in this trap through nice guy syndrome.  As some women can attest, nice guys are seldom nice, but passive aggressive weenies who label themselves as feminists and spew what they think women want to hear in an attempt to win their sexual favor.  Ultimately this fails; these supposedly nice guys ironically blame women for their solitude, but not without furthering their interests for an indeterminable period of time beforehand.

For either reason, the public debate democracy relies upon to thrive and solve its problems is undermined.  People are ostracized for pointing out unpopular but scientifically tenable information.  Discussion of these ideas is pushed into the nether realms of pseudonymity – there’s a reason Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu write under pen names – or anonymity.  However, the P.C. mongers who create such an inhospitable environment for intellectual discourse then discredit these ideas because they emerged in an incubator where nobody will attach his or her name to such controversies.  I would applaud this politicking as brilliant if the collateral effect on society, progress and civil discourse wasn’t so detrimental.  In the end, though, it’s all about sex.  As long as these white knights of rightthink are rewarded with sex, or think they will be, it will be impossible to move beyond this paradigm.

Rest in Slack, Brother

In honor of Cliff Heller, who merged with the infinite on this day in 2006, the Legal Satyricon flag is lowered to half mast and there will be no posts today. If you happen to find yourself with a bottle of tequila nearby, I would like to invite you to take a shot (no salt) in his honor.

Blue Skies and Rest in Slack

...

Indiana Governor lives up to Indiana’s negative stereotypes; nobody surprised

By J. DeVoy

In a recent interview, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels talked candidly about his Christian beliefs and values.  Referring to Matthew 6: 1-6, Daniels describes his prayer and almsgiving as “private,” something done for himself and not for posturing before others.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for his tolerance of other religions, or people who subscribe to no particular religion.

The true irony of Daniels’ interview comes when its interpreted in light of this statement:

To me, the core of the Christian faith is humility

This is hilarious, because the interview demonstrates anything but.  Unfortunately, Daniels lacks the humility to shut the fuck up despite his ignorance.

First, Daniels has a simplistic view of American history for a governor:

Our country was founded -this is just an historic fact; some people today may resist this notion but it is absolutely true- it was founded by people of faith. It was founded on principles of faith. The whole idea of equality of men and women [and] of the races all springs from the notion that we’re all children of a just God. It is very important to at least my notion of what America’s about and should be about and I hope it’s reflected most of the time in the choices that we make personally.

The founding fathers did in fact believe in god in some form; they were deists.  They did not, however, believe in recognizing a right to religion, but rather a right to be free of it, rising from the controversies caused by the Anglican church.  Where, exactly, is Daniels getting this non-sequitur about the equality of men and women?  At the time of America’s founding, women were property to be held by men at marriage, and voting was the province of the landed gentry.  (Whether expanding the franchise was a good idea is a separate discussion.)  And this notion of equality doesn’t spring forth from god, either.  Though the New Testament makes strides toward men honoring women as spouses and equals within marriage, there is no clear, uncontroverted imperative for gender equality.  To be fair to Christians, the Old Testament, containing the laws about who should be stoned for committing acts that seem trivial today, will be omitted from this discussion; it’s disingenuous for people to cite it and hold it against Christians who have abandoned the Old Testament in favor of the New, but keep it in their scriptures for historical context and foundation.

Why is this important to Daniels’ notion of what America’s about?  In case he didn’t notice, America is basically Britain light, but with the common sense to actually write our constitution.  The rights that Daniels believes were inspired by God existed for centuries and were first roughly defined in the magna carta.  Inspired by people’s religious beliefs?  Perhaps.  Dictated by god?  Not a chance in hell.

The ignorance accelerates, though.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

“All” the horrific crimes?  Are you sure about that, governor?

Think hard.

Surely nobody with a professed religious belief has committed any wrong over the last century.

Right?

What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

It’s as if this man has seen the Matrix, the very superstructure of the universe itself, and ignored it!  Life is all about power; Realpolitik is real and has been in full effect for as long as tribes, states and any groups of people have existed. What if there is no eternity?  Was disadvantaging yourself during life really worth it, then?  Unlikely.

Daniels’ concern over the recent proselytism of atheism i’s misguided.  Athiests simply want to confront others with facts, new perspectives and foreign ideas.  They aren’t forcing people happy with their beliefs to accept anything new – just challenging them to broaden their horizons and consider the previously imponderable.  I am not surprised that someone who thinks abstinence-only sex education is a good thing finds this repugnant.

Everyone’s certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion.

Thanks, asshole.  I didn’t even have to read the Constitution for that nugget.  The problem is that the ignorant masses, unaware of what else exists, let alone what may be good or better for them (thus their ignorance), shout down naysayers and then smugly hide behind the declaration that “it’s a free country.  Sure, everyone is “entitled to their opinion!”  The problem is that most people are too stupid to appreciate that the opposition may have a point.  Normally one can point and laugh at these people and their ignorance, but for such beliefs to be held by a governor – even if it’s just Indiana – is dangerous.

Strange Middle Eastern cult demands removal of public utilities

The Teheran city government installed bicycle lanes so that the city could be more “green,” and to promote healthy lifestyles in the Islamic Republic’s capitol. However, once the lanes were installed, local Mullahs called for them to be removed. They were concerned that faithful Islamic men were being tempted to look at womens’ knees, which are usually exposed when they ride bicycles. The stone-age morality pigs won out, and the bike lanes were removed.

Wait… I got that whole thing wrong. It wasn’t in Teheran, it was in New York City. And it wasn’t Islamic stone age cult members, it was Hasids. But, in New York, you don’t criticize these fundamentalist nut-bags. You do as you’re bloody well told by them.

So when the Hasids went bananas over bike lanes being installed in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the mayor had the lanes washed away. But then, huzzah, “hipsters” came into the neighborhood and put them all back. (source)

Anyone who thinks that an imaginary friend wants you to dress like you are on your way to a lord of the rings convention is a bit screwy. Nevertheless, Hasids are part of our multicultural fabric, and they ought to have the freedom to follow the rules of their silly little cult. But, the other side of the deal is that the rest of us get to come into “their” neighborhoods, what with our newfangled inventions like bicycles.

The Book of “How Convenient”

It seems that some of the hucksters who make gobs of money lying to MSZJ eaters have come up with an interpretation of the Bible that supports their decision to ignore that whole “meek shall inherit the earth” thing — The Theory of the Wealthy Jesus.

Designated Driver

Jennifer Lee De Roberto got pulled over in Lee County, Flori-duh for some reason or another. The police smelled alcohol, but she denied having anything to drink. Then the story gets awesome:

She claimed to have had nothing to drink and said she was the designated driver, even though no one else was in the car. Deputies did find three full bottles and a half-emtpy bottle of Sutter Home wine in the car.

She told the deputy: “I’m a good person. Why are you doing this to me?”

After she failed field sobriety tests in a nearby parking lot, she pulled down her pants, sat down and urinated. A grandmother and her 10-year-old granddaughter were in an adjacent fireworks stand and witnessed the incident. (source)

She later blew a .20. The legal limit is .08.

I am not a DUI lawyer, but let me give you some free advice. If you get pulled over for a DUI, don’t piss during the traffic stop.

And it didn’t even happen in Florida!

A guy got busted for breaking in to a horse track and screwing the horses. Yes really.

Holiday hangover – all your rights are belong to INTERPOL

To the surprise of 20-somethings everywhere, INTERPOL is not just a band.

By J. DeVoy

In a little-publicized move just now being scrutinized over at The Spearhead, Barack Obama has granted the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) new immunities under US law.  On December 16, 2009, Obama signed an executive order amending Order 12425, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1983.  This new order removes language restricting the immunities enjoyed by INTERPOL under the International Organizations Immunities Act.  Most troubling to civil libertarians is the protection of § 2(c) now extended to INTERPOL, providing that:

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

ThreatsWatch.org astutely notes that such protection immunizes INTERPOL property and assets held in the US or by US citizens from search and seizure.  This raises difficult questions about the creep of international influences on US sovereignty, as INTERPOL now receives greater protection than agencies subject to the freedom of information act (see the second clause of § 2(c)).  Additionally, INTERPOL’s property is now immune from search and confiscation without regard to how it’s acquired.

If INTERPOL takes individual property in any form and for any reason – say an investigation or other matter – it’s gone.  Kiss it goodbye, because you may no longer have the force of law to recover it.  Even if it was recoverable under Obama’s new order, those “inviolable” records and archives can’t be subpoenaed or otherwise investigated to find out where the property is or what happened to it.

On a mundane and daily level, this won’t affect many people.  However nefarious your web use, the INTERPOLice are unlikely to walk in the door, go full Chris Hansen, and confiscate your laptop; nor are they likely to take your car, furniture or other items.  Property is a broad term, though, and may be most likely applied in taking trade secrets, copyrights and patents that do relate to legitimate INTERPOL activities, such as the investigation of child pornography and human trafficking of children.  Truly, “think of the children” is the universal battle cry of personal liberty’s staunchest enemies.  This form of property is much more valuable than personal property and, due to the intangible nature of it, the danger of this property’s expropriation does not strike fear into the hearts of the uncreative classes, i.e. most people.

Not only can INTERPOL now take what it wants, it seems to be able to do so without compensation – a violation of the Fifth Amendment if done by a sovereign government.  Even skeptics of due process will take issue with this level of power being given to a foreign entity.  Considering the Supreme Court’s flirtation with international law while outwardly rejecting it, though, this erosion of sovereignty hardly is surprising.

Merry Christmas

I see Marc’s Snoop Dogg and raise him some Run DMC.

Pope pwned, merry Christmas!

By  J. DeVoy

A woman got a little too carried away with the holiday spirit and tackled the pontiff during his midnight mass procession.  And you thought this kind of barbarism only happened in lines to burst through Walmart’s doors.  Unless her wish was a night in the slammer, she won’t be having a very merry Christmas.

Universal Legal Care

Norm Pattis makes a pretty strong argument for a universal public defender system.

HP Computers are Racist?

This is pretty hilarious.

I just have to wonder though… maybe this is a good thing. I mean, if we can teach computers to be racist, perhaps they will soon develop a full spectrum of emotions. Maybe this is just the beginning of computer consciousness!

Oh wait. Maybe this is not a good thing.

Maybe… just maybe, Desi and Wanda discovered the first computer that became self-aware. Maybe this is the first piece of Skynet. Oh no. Desi and Wanda! Destroy that computer NOW!

Maybe it isn’t that HP computers are racist, Desi. Maybe… just maybe…. negroes have developed cloaking abilities! Or, maybe they just have natural cloaking capabilities, and then maybe all astronauts will be black one day… you know, so the Romulans can’t see them.

The Balloon Boy’s Parents and the First Amendment

Yes!!! There is a First Amendment angle to the Balloon Boy story!

Yikes. Yes, the Balloon Boy family screwed up, but 30 days in jail for the dad and 20 days in jail for the mom, in addition to having to pay back all the money that the authorities spent chasing down the balloon… it seems a little bit over the top.

The judge, noting that the hoax was “all done for making money,” also barred Richard and Mayumi Heene from receiving any financial benefit –such as a book deal — in connection with the incident. (source)

I would like to see the exact text of that order before giving a firm opinion on it, but that seems like a First Amendment problem to me. In Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board 502 U.S. 105 (1991), the Supreme Court unanimously knocked out a New York law that prohibited criminals from making money by selling their stories.

In Keenan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 27 Cal. 4th 413; 40 P.3d 718; 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 (2002), the California Supreme Court knocked out the California Son of Sam law,

“[The law suffered from] the same fundamental defect identified in Simon & Schuster; it reaches beyond a criminal’s profits from the crime or its exploitation to reach all income from the criminal’s speech or expression on any theme or subject, if the story of the crime is included.”

Before you Fox News types start flipping out about “what about the victim?” or “the criminals don’t deserve money” consider the First Amendment issue. The California Supreme Court recognized that laws like this “[discourage] the creation and dissemination of a wide range of ideas and expressive works which have little or no relationship to the exploitation of one’s criminal misdeeds.” In other words, the First Amendment problem stems from the fact that we all lose out on the literature that might be created, if the law prohibits the incentive to create it. In the end, the the marketplace of ideas suffers — therefore we all suffer.

The Colorado Son of Sam Law, Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-4.1-201 (2009) seems (on a quick read) to be constitutional. It doesn’t altogether prohibit criminals from profiting from selling their stories. However, if they do sell their story, any money they would have earned goes into an escrow account for five years. During that time, any victims of the crime can get judgments against the funds in the escrow account. After the victims get paid, the state can tax the escrow account to cover the cost of the criminal’s incarceration. After that is paid, the criminal can have what is left over.

The LA Times article does not make it clear if the judge rendered his order under C.R.S. 24-4.1-201, or if he just made the order up at the bench. However, if the LA Times has the coverage right, I don’t think that this portion of the order would stand. Of course, who knows if the LA Times got the coverage right. I will update this post if I get confirmation of the exact language of the judge’s order and the basis for his “Son of Sam” language.

Mexico… land of the free?

Living a mere 20 minutes from the Mexican border, it always seems funny to me that the U.S. side is supposed to be the “land of the free.” Meanwhile, if you want to buy certain drugs without getting a doctor and an insurance company involved, you just walk in to the Farmacia over the border and you can have whatever you like. If you want a hooker or to see a girl dance on stage without some christian-inspired puritanical laws in the way, or hell, if you just wanna catch a good old fashioned Donkey Show, you leave the United States. I’m not saying that I am tempted to move to Tijuana (or Vancouver) any time soon, but it does make the irony meter jump up a bit that of the “big three” in North America, the United States seems to have the least love of civil liberties.

It also seems funny that we consider Mexico to be a more “backward” country when Latin America seems to be doing just fine in terms of breaking the chains of theocracy. Meanwhile, the United States tries to be more like Iran with every election cycle. Well, now Mexico City joins Uruguay and some Argentinean cities in rebuffing the Pope and passing progressive human rights legislation.

the Mexico City initiative goes further than any other in Latin America by rewriting the law to redefine marriage as a “free union between two people,” not only between a man and a woman. It gives homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual pairs, including the right to adopt, inherit, obtain joint housing loans and share insurance policies. (source)

Meanwhile, California let its religious zealots amend its constitution to revoke the civil rights of its gay citizens.