We will ban all militaries! Ban war!
Of course, without a military, such a ban cannot be enforced.
I believe that idea was tried already. The treaty of Versailles made it illegal for Germany to have a military beyond a small self defense force.
When Germany violated the treaty, the French and British did nothing. This treaty had clearly stated what Germany’s navy should be – no submarines and only six warships over 10,000 tons. In June 1935 the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed. This allowed Germany to have one third of the tonnage of the British navy’s surface fleet (probably the largest in the world at this time) and an equal tonnage of submarines.
Why did Britain agree that Nazi Germany could break the terms of Versailles?
This event saw the start of what was to be called appeasement. It was believed that Nazi Germany would develop her navy regardless and that an official agreement between Nazi Germany and Britain would do much to foster relations between both countries. No one was willing to use force to back up the agreement.
That is a universal truth: those who are unwilling to use force in self defense will always be the victims of those who are willing to use force to obtain what they want.
To have peace, be ready for war.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Two stories
Two attacks of Florida College Students. In the first, a man enters the campus of Florida State University and begins shooting. Three people are hit, and one of them is now paralyzed for life. The gunman was killed 5 minutes later by police officers who responded to the scene. It turns out that he was mentally disturbed. It also turns out that he was a liberal attorney who graduated from FSU in 1979.
One of the victims in the shooting was Nathan Scott. Nathan Scott is a concealed carry permit holder, as well as a concealed carry activist who is highly trained and has the necessary skills to carry his firearm. He was disarmed, because under state law, the FSU campus is a “gun free zone” where law abiding gun owners are stripped of their right to carry. Of course, while law-abiding citizens leave their guns at home… criminals see no reason to obey the “gun free zone” signs and carry their firearms wherever they want. Which is EXACTLY what happened at FSU.
Which brings us to the second incident. In this incident, a pair of University of Central Florida students were victims of a home invasion in their off-campus apartment. The home invaders held a gun to the male occupant's head and told the man that they were going to kill his girlfriend, who had fled to a back bedroom. What they didn't know was that the woman had retrieved a handgun, and when they went after her, she pointed it at them, and they fled.
The state legislature of Florida has proposed several pro-defense bills, and the localliberals press have come out in opposition. They come out with their typical diatribe:
One of the victims in the shooting was Nathan Scott. Nathan Scott is a concealed carry permit holder, as well as a concealed carry activist who is highly trained and has the necessary skills to carry his firearm. He was disarmed, because under state law, the FSU campus is a “gun free zone” where law abiding gun owners are stripped of their right to carry. Of course, while law-abiding citizens leave their guns at home… criminals see no reason to obey the “gun free zone” signs and carry their firearms wherever they want. Which is EXACTLY what happened at FSU.
Which brings us to the second incident. In this incident, a pair of University of Central Florida students were victims of a home invasion in their off-campus apartment. The home invaders held a gun to the male occupant's head and told the man that they were going to kill his girlfriend, who had fled to a back bedroom. What they didn't know was that the woman had retrieved a handgun, and when they went after her, she pointed it at them, and they fled.
The state legislature of Florida has proposed several pro-defense bills, and the local
Maybe that’s because they understand the young people who populate their campuses, and the sometimes rash and immature ways in which they can act, particularly after consuming alcohol. Adding firearms into the mix is a legitimate cause for concern.Totally ignoring the fact that many college students, teachers, and professors are not the stereotypical 'Animal House' idiots that they are attempting to paint them as. Especially considering that those same students manage to carry concealed weapons everywhere else that they go in the state without causing any of problems. It is hard to see how that changes as soon as they cross an imaginary line to enter campus.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Hands up, don't shoot criminals
In a recent case, police were called to a downtown Orlando nightclub because of a report of a man brandishing a firearm. The surveillance video is found here.
A man was thrown out of a nightclub for fighting (:19). He pulled a pistol out of his waistband (:31), drops it on the ground, and waits outside of the locked nightclub with the pistol in a low ready position. He sticks the handgun back into his waistband at :58 and continues to pace outside of the club.
The police officers (2 of them) confront the armed man at 1:40 with guns drawn. He does not obey commands to raise his hands. More officers arrive They shoot him with a Taser at about 1:55, at which time both of his hands go to his waistband. Most of the cops retreat, and the one center screen fires 9 shots. Seven of them hit the suspect, and one travels through the door of the nightclub and strikes a female bystander in the head, killing her. The suspect, who lived, is charged with murder for her death.
The local press does a story, and this is where the main point of this post comes in:
There is one commenter who has made the following statements
Another case of excessive force by Police. My prayers for Mr. Roach's full recovery.
A man was thrown out of a nightclub for fighting (:19). He pulled a pistol out of his waistband (:31), drops it on the ground, and waits outside of the locked nightclub with the pistol in a low ready position. He sticks the handgun back into his waistband at :58 and continues to pace outside of the club.
The police officers (2 of them) confront the armed man at 1:40 with guns drawn. He does not obey commands to raise his hands. More officers arrive They shoot him with a Taser at about 1:55, at which time both of his hands go to his waistband. Most of the cops retreat, and the one center screen fires 9 shots. Seven of them hit the suspect, and one travels through the door of the nightclub and strikes a female bystander in the head, killing her. The suspect, who lived, is charged with murder for her death.
The local press does a story, and this is where the main point of this post comes in:
There is one commenter who has made the following statements
Another case of excessive force by Police. My prayers for Mr. Roach's full recovery.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Australia
We hear time and again from anti gun people that "Australia saw a 50% reduction in their murder rate after passing a gun ban." Is this really true? Let's take a look at the facts.
In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where a man went on a shooting spree which killed 35 people and injured 23 more, Australia passed a law This law, the Medicare Levy Amendment Act of1996, mandated that many had to turn in their guns in exchange for $500. It was passed without true representation. When pro gun people attempted to join political parties and to vote, they were prohibited from doing so by the anti gun politicians and court (pdf warning). This confiscation was completed on September 30, 1997.
EDITED TO ADD: There are numerous newspaper articles that detail how the Liberal party of the country did all in their power to keep people from being able to vote on the issue. Here is an example, and a quote:
END EDIT
The laws in effect in Australia are much more strict than in the US, and as a result, only 5% of the public owns firearms. The anti gun people here in the US insist that this resulted in a 50% reduction in the Australian murder rate. The Australian government has tracked homicide statistics under the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) since 1989.
According to the NHMP, the highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1999, with 344 murders being reported. That was TWO YEARS AFTER the strict gun laws went into effect. In fact, the number of murders in Australia have remained steady at between 250 and 350 murders for the entire time that the government has been tracking the statistics.
There has been a 5% reduction in the number of murders in the 20 years since the new gun laws, but there was a similar reduction in the years BEFORE the law went into effect as well, indicating that there was already an overall reduction underway without new gun laws.
So where do the anti gun folks get their "fact" about a 50% reduction from? From 1915 to 1996, about 30% of homicides in Australia were committed by people wielding firearms. From 1996 onwards, that has fallen to about 15%. So what we have seen is a 50% reduction in FIREARM murders, but we have seen a corresponding increase in non-firearm murders, so that the overall rate of homicide has remained unchanged.
It doesn't matter whether a person is killed with a gun, a stick, or a balled up fist, they are still dead. Unless, of course, you have a political agenda.
In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where a man went on a shooting spree which killed 35 people and injured 23 more, Australia passed a law This law, the Medicare Levy Amendment Act of1996, mandated that many had to turn in their guns in exchange for $500. It was passed without true representation. When pro gun people attempted to join political parties and to vote, they were prohibited from doing so by the anti gun politicians and court (pdf warning). This confiscation was completed on September 30, 1997.
EDITED TO ADD: There are numerous newspaper articles that detail how the Liberal party of the country did all in their power to keep people from being able to vote on the issue. Here is an example, and a quote:
The Queensland Liberal Party plans to thoroughly check new membership applications in order to prevent members of the gun lobby joining and challenging the preselection of politicians who support gun controls. The New South Wales Liberal Party will have prospective new members forms checked at their head office.There was also talk about "extremists" infiltrating the parties. These "extremists" were eventually not permitted to vote:
Atkins examines whether the increased activity of the far right over the past two months reflects something serious in Australian politics, and whether it poses a threat to the National Party. He canvasses the opinions of Andrew Moore, Gerard Henderson and Liz Van Acker, who feel that the potential infiltration of the National Party branches is a more serious issue than the emergence of a new party. The mainstream right needs to confront right wing extremists in the same way that Labor has taken on left wing extremists. Politicians must also put themselves back in touch with what is happening outside the major urban areas.Can't have those extremists voting. Only people who have the approved opinion may vote.
END EDIT
The laws in effect in Australia are much more strict than in the US, and as a result, only 5% of the public owns firearms. The anti gun people here in the US insist that this resulted in a 50% reduction in the Australian murder rate. The Australian government has tracked homicide statistics under the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) since 1989.
According to the NHMP, the highest murder rate in the country's history was in 1999, with 344 murders being reported. That was TWO YEARS AFTER the strict gun laws went into effect. In fact, the number of murders in Australia have remained steady at between 250 and 350 murders for the entire time that the government has been tracking the statistics.
So where do the anti gun folks get their "fact" about a 50% reduction from? From 1915 to 1996, about 30% of homicides in Australia were committed by people wielding firearms. From 1996 onwards, that has fallen to about 15%. So what we have seen is a 50% reduction in FIREARM murders, but we have seen a corresponding increase in non-firearm murders, so that the overall rate of homicide has remained unchanged.
Universal Background Checks
If only we required background checks for all firearms transfers, criminals wouldn't be able to get guns...
What about the burglary loophole?
What about the burglary loophole?
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Their votes count as much as yours...
Seven of fourteen people surveyed claimed that they saw Martin Luther King, Jr give a speech on Monday.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Smartphone and smart guns
New Smartphone apps claim to be able to tell if the user of the phone is depressed. Does this mean that we are about to be inundated with anti gun forces calling for laws that would allow your gun to refuse to fire if it detects that you are experiencing psychological distress?
Friday, January 16, 2015
Hoods and hoodies.
With all of the crime this year in and around St Louis, one Family Dollar Store posted a sign, requesting that customers remove hoods before entering. Some customers felt that the ban on covering your identifiable features with a hooded sweatshirt was racist. I was not aware that hooded sweatshirts were only for blacks.
The national headquarters for the chain have since forced the local store to take down the sign.
The national headquarters for the chain have since forced the local store to take down the sign.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Libs: Military=mass murderers
Connecticut Lawmaker Max Blumenthal says that military members who kill, such as Chris Kyle, are mass murderers that are no better than Lee Malvo. This is what Liberals think of the military. They claim to oppose using force on anyone. Except gun owners. and Republicans. And anyone else they don't like.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Arming teachers
I have been a teacher for just over six months. In that time, I have seen three students attack teachers. I have seen or heard of quite a few students who have attacked fellow students. Our school doesn't even lock its doors. There is one School Resource Officer, but he is rarely on campus, and when he is, he spends his days surfing the internet. I had an incident in my classroom (a medical emergency) that required 911, and EMS beat the officer to my room.
In one attack, a male student was arguing with his girlfriend. He was yelling at her "I am going to kill you for that," and it so alarmed two staff members that they asked the girl to hide in the teacher's lounge, and they called for the SRO and the Prinicpal. It took ten minutes for them to arrive. In those intervening minutes, the two small female staff members (one of them disabled) tried to keep the young man away from the girl. He struck them and shoved them both out of the way.
What did the vice principal do about it? He suspended the boy and admonished the staff members, saying that them getting hit was their own fault, because no staff member is ever allowed to use force on a student for any reason. Then we as staff were all given training to that effect, where the administration told us that it is against state law for a teacher to ever use force or violence on a child. Being the new employee, I didn't argue.
Because of a bill introduced in Florida that would allow some teachers to be armed, some coworkers and I recently had a debate on the topic where other teachers expressed opposition to the idea. They claimed that having guns around kids was just asking for trouble. What if a kid took my gun from me, they asked. They also said that nothing would prevent me from snapping one day and killing a student who was getting on my nerves.
I pointed out that I spent six years in the military, 22 years as a firemedic, regularly compete in IDPA matches, worked for several years as a SWAT medic, and have carried a concealed weapon since I was 21 years old. I can carry that weapon everywhere else except school, and in all that time, I have never once had my weapon taken from me, nor have I ever "snapped" and killed anyone. The reply was that the other mass shooters had never snapped before, until they did.
Then one teacher said that she would support the law, as long as it was required by law to keep the safety on, so that the gun would not go off by mistake.
These are supposedly educated people.
In one attack, a male student was arguing with his girlfriend. He was yelling at her "I am going to kill you for that," and it so alarmed two staff members that they asked the girl to hide in the teacher's lounge, and they called for the SRO and the Prinicpal. It took ten minutes for them to arrive. In those intervening minutes, the two small female staff members (one of them disabled) tried to keep the young man away from the girl. He struck them and shoved them both out of the way.
What did the vice principal do about it? He suspended the boy and admonished the staff members, saying that them getting hit was their own fault, because no staff member is ever allowed to use force on a student for any reason. Then we as staff were all given training to that effect, where the administration told us that it is against state law for a teacher to ever use force or violence on a child. Being the new employee, I didn't argue.
Because of a bill introduced in Florida that would allow some teachers to be armed, some coworkers and I recently had a debate on the topic where other teachers expressed opposition to the idea. They claimed that having guns around kids was just asking for trouble. What if a kid took my gun from me, they asked. They also said that nothing would prevent me from snapping one day and killing a student who was getting on my nerves.
I pointed out that I spent six years in the military, 22 years as a firemedic, regularly compete in IDPA matches, worked for several years as a SWAT medic, and have carried a concealed weapon since I was 21 years old. I can carry that weapon everywhere else except school, and in all that time, I have never once had my weapon taken from me, nor have I ever "snapped" and killed anyone. The reply was that the other mass shooters had never snapped before, until they did.
Then one teacher said that she would support the law, as long as it was required by law to keep the safety on, so that the gun would not go off by mistake.
These are supposedly educated people.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
This is why I don't use Tasers
If you carry a concealed firearm, you will invariably hear a variation of this: "Why do you need to carry a gun? A Taser is just as good, and you won't kill anyone."
Here is a story about a couple who was arrested when they attacked a security guard who had just deployed a Taser against them. After shrugging off the shock, they turned it on him and beat him senseless. The guard was foolish at best. He entered a fight that had at least 4 participants, while carrying a contact weapon (or if it fired darts, a single shot weapon with a range of only 20 feet) and got his ass handed to him.
Tasers are ineffective in a situation like that.
Here is a story about a couple who was arrested when they attacked a security guard who had just deployed a Taser against them. After shrugging off the shock, they turned it on him and beat him senseless. The guard was foolish at best. He entered a fight that had at least 4 participants, while carrying a contact weapon (or if it fired darts, a single shot weapon with a range of only 20 feet) and got his ass handed to him.
Tasers are ineffective in a situation like that.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Politcal Correctness
The Marines can''t get women to pass the Combat Officer course. The answer isn't to say that women can't do the job- nope, the answer is to lower the standard so women can pass.
We are doomed.
We are doomed.
Computerized cars
I read Tam's post on cars, and I instantly laughed to myself.
Computer controlled cars:
Once cars are computer controlled, the major computer companies will be on board:
Microsoft car: "It has been determined my model number is too old and this model is no longer supported. Therefore, I can only drive to the recycling center after today's date. If you would like to order the new model, please go to www.windowscar.com."
The car will be made by many different manufacturers with a large number of options, and usually costs about $40,000.
The car will freeze, hang, and occasionally crash for no apparent reason. When you call Microsoft, they will blame the maker of the transmission and engine. The makers of the engine and transmission will blame the software by Microsoft. Apple owners will laugh and point out that their car "just works."
Apple car: There will be a new release every year, and the Apple fans will line up at the dealership a week before to get one. The car comes in models that seat 1, 2, or 4 people and will cost $80,000 for the 1 person model, $100,000 for the 2 person model, and the 4 person model will set you back $125,000. The car can only be driven on roads owned by Apple, Maintenance, and even airing up the tires can only be done at the Genius bar. Refueling requires that you trade in the old car for a new one, as there are no user serviceable features on this car.
Not to be outdone, the tech nerds will open source a Linux version that you can download into one of the Windows cars. The software will be free, but only about ten percent of the people on the road will understand enough about the car in order to start it. The Linux software eliminates the software problems of the Windows automobile operating system, but you also need to download an emulator in order to operate on anything other than residential streets.
Computer controlled cars:
Once cars are computer controlled, the major computer companies will be on board:
Microsoft car: "It has been determined my model number is too old and this model is no longer supported. Therefore, I can only drive to the recycling center after today's date. If you would like to order the new model, please go to www.windowscar.com."
The car will be made by many different manufacturers with a large number of options, and usually costs about $40,000.
The car will freeze, hang, and occasionally crash for no apparent reason. When you call Microsoft, they will blame the maker of the transmission and engine. The makers of the engine and transmission will blame the software by Microsoft. Apple owners will laugh and point out that their car "just works."
Apple car: There will be a new release every year, and the Apple fans will line up at the dealership a week before to get one. The car comes in models that seat 1, 2, or 4 people and will cost $80,000 for the 1 person model, $100,000 for the 2 person model, and the 4 person model will set you back $125,000. The car can only be driven on roads owned by Apple, Maintenance, and even airing up the tires can only be done at the Genius bar. Refueling requires that you trade in the old car for a new one, as there are no user serviceable features on this car.
Not to be outdone, the tech nerds will open source a Linux version that you can download into one of the Windows cars. The software will be free, but only about ten percent of the people on the road will understand enough about the car in order to start it. The Linux software eliminates the software problems of the Windows automobile operating system, but you also need to download an emulator in order to operate on anything other than residential streets.
Spyware
The headline at HuffPo reads: "Abusers using spyware to monitor partners," referring to this article, as if people who monitor what their significant others are doing is automatically abuse. It ignores the fact that there are many cheating spouses out there, and the way that they get caught is through the use of this software. In my mind, it is no different than the spouse who hires a private detective to catch a cheating spouse.
However, that isn't my point. My point here is this: If using software to monitor a spouse's activity is abusive, then why are we allowing our government to do it?
However, that isn't my point. My point here is this: If using software to monitor a spouse's activity is abusive, then why are we allowing our government to do it?
Thursday, January 8, 2015
DUI checkpoints
A man finds a way to make it through DUI checkpoints without being illegally searched, and then posts a video of it on the internet. The comments sicken me. Here is an example:
I agree but having a drivers license is not a freedom it is a privilege. To keep that privilege you must obey the law and as somebody that has seen the effects of DUI first hand as an EMT and emergency room technician I totally disagree. What should happen is the cops should remove the Drivers license and the driver must pick it up at the DMV. If you have nothing to hide then don't worry. The checkpoint takes 30 seconds if you aren't drunk.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Imposssible!
A mass shooting in France, where guns are more heavily regulated than any country in North America?
Could it be that gun laws don't work?
Could it be that gun laws don't work?
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
things never change
and with this, the Republicans prove that they cannot take a hint. There is no way we can vote ourselves out of what is about to come.
We are on the train to national insolvency and dictatorship. The left claims that they need to tax the rich to pay for all of their programs and ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the national economic pie. They ignore the fact that they are spending us into insolvency. Oh, and they want to ban guns and legalize pot.
The right claims that they want to control the left's spending, but never seem to do so. They claim that we need to cut spending and taxes. Just not defense. We need to go to war with everyone until they all bow down to us as Americans and outlaw gay marriage.
Neither party wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
The chief war cry of the right is: if you don' t vote for the party hack, it is the same as voting for the other guy. Except, they forget that it won't matter which one you vote for, because other than the D or R behind his name, there is not a real difference between them.
Lest you forget, our last Republican president brought us a 9 year long war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11; the Patriot Act; the TSA and their intrusive searches; secret prisons; torturing prisoners for information; and added more than $4,900,000,000,000 to the national debt in 8 years.
Our current President has expanded the powers left for him by his Republican predecessor and begunexecuting
assassinating Americans without trial, forced people to buy products
that they don't want, and has expanded the national debt by
$7,500,000,000,000 in 6 years.
It doesn't matter who we vote for, as our course is set. We aren't voting our way out of this. It is only a matter of time before we sink our national ship under the weight of fiscal irresponsibility.
We are on the train to national insolvency and dictatorship. The left claims that they need to tax the rich to pay for all of their programs and ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the national economic pie. They ignore the fact that they are spending us into insolvency. Oh, and they want to ban guns and legalize pot.
The right claims that they want to control the left's spending, but never seem to do so. They claim that we need to cut spending and taxes. Just not defense. We need to go to war with everyone until they all bow down to us as Americans and outlaw gay marriage.
Neither party wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
The chief war cry of the right is: if you don' t vote for the party hack, it is the same as voting for the other guy. Except, they forget that it won't matter which one you vote for, because other than the D or R behind his name, there is not a real difference between them.
Lest you forget, our last Republican president brought us a 9 year long war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11; the Patriot Act; the TSA and their intrusive searches; secret prisons; torturing prisoners for information; and added more than $4,900,000,000,000 to the national debt in 8 years.
Our current President has expanded the powers left for him by his Republican predecessor and begun
It doesn't matter who we vote for, as our course is set. We aren't voting our way out of this. It is only a matter of time before we sink our national ship under the weight of fiscal irresponsibility.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Not a free market
Cell phone contracts last for two years. The problem is that I usually get a new phone every year, because I am pretty hard on cell phones. When it is time to get a new phone, unless you are close to the end of your contract, the phone company wants you to pay full price for the replacement, and with the advent of smart phones, this is usually around $700 or so.
So what I did in the past was that I had two lines sharing the same account. With this method on Verizon, all you do at upgrade time is sign a new two year contract with Verizon. Now you have a year old phone with a year left on the contract, and a new phone with a two year contract. You put the SIM card that you are using in the new phone, and then sell the old one, usually for $200-300. Now you have two phones, for which you must pay the $40 a month "smart phone access fee," even though you are only using one of them.
You could just pay the early termination fee, but that is $240, if you still have a year on the contract. To solve this, you tell the Verizon people that you are switching that old smart phone out for an old "dumb" phone. Dumb phones only have a $10 per month fee, meaning that this will only cost you $120.
I did this for years, until I dropped my phone and broke it, only six months after I bought it. Now here I was, with no phone, and no upgrade available for at least 4 months. Along comes Verizon, explaining to me that the new "Edge Up" program would allow me to get a new phone now, and since the Edge program was a purchase agreement, I would no longer be contractually obligated for service. So I signed on the dotted line, content that my phone bills would go down by $30 a month, because I would no longer have to maintain two lines. Once my second contract ran out in December, I would cancel it and only maintain a single line.
The salesman assured me that I would be able to do this. I looked over the contract, and sure enough, the contract appeared to say that as well.
December comes, and they tell me that I cannot shut down the second line without paying the entire price of the phone, which was double what the Edge contract was for. I went to the store and argued with the manager and the very same salesman that sold me the phone. They pointed to the arbitration clause, which reads that Verizon, in their sole discretion, gets to define what the terms of the contact mean, and if you disagree with them, you waive your rights to sue, and must settle in arbitration, using their arbitrators. I told the salesman that they were dishonest and were ripping people off. His reply? "you signed it"
In other words, we gotcha. Yes, I signed it. That doesn't make it any less dishonest to bury a weasel clause in a 17 page contract.
So now, I have to switch my number so I can lower the one I am currently using to "dumb" phone status, and my cell bill for a single phone is now $140 a month. This may be the end of my journey with Verizon. American cell phone companies are a ripoff. $140 a month for phone service? I was just talking with people from other countries, and most countries pay less than $40 a month for unlimited talk, text, and data. Sure, you have to buy your own phone, but there are no early termination fees, no contracts, and you can switch carriers as you please.
These contracts are distorting the market, and there is no real choice or competition in the cell phone market.
So what I did in the past was that I had two lines sharing the same account. With this method on Verizon, all you do at upgrade time is sign a new two year contract with Verizon. Now you have a year old phone with a year left on the contract, and a new phone with a two year contract. You put the SIM card that you are using in the new phone, and then sell the old one, usually for $200-300. Now you have two phones, for which you must pay the $40 a month "smart phone access fee," even though you are only using one of them.
You could just pay the early termination fee, but that is $240, if you still have a year on the contract. To solve this, you tell the Verizon people that you are switching that old smart phone out for an old "dumb" phone. Dumb phones only have a $10 per month fee, meaning that this will only cost you $120.
I did this for years, until I dropped my phone and broke it, only six months after I bought it. Now here I was, with no phone, and no upgrade available for at least 4 months. Along comes Verizon, explaining to me that the new "Edge Up" program would allow me to get a new phone now, and since the Edge program was a purchase agreement, I would no longer be contractually obligated for service. So I signed on the dotted line, content that my phone bills would go down by $30 a month, because I would no longer have to maintain two lines. Once my second contract ran out in December, I would cancel it and only maintain a single line.
The salesman assured me that I would be able to do this. I looked over the contract, and sure enough, the contract appeared to say that as well.
December comes, and they tell me that I cannot shut down the second line without paying the entire price of the phone, which was double what the Edge contract was for. I went to the store and argued with the manager and the very same salesman that sold me the phone. They pointed to the arbitration clause, which reads that Verizon, in their sole discretion, gets to define what the terms of the contact mean, and if you disagree with them, you waive your rights to sue, and must settle in arbitration, using their arbitrators. I told the salesman that they were dishonest and were ripping people off. His reply? "you signed it"
In other words, we gotcha. Yes, I signed it. That doesn't make it any less dishonest to bury a weasel clause in a 17 page contract.
So now, I have to switch my number so I can lower the one I am currently using to "dumb" phone status, and my cell bill for a single phone is now $140 a month. This may be the end of my journey with Verizon. American cell phone companies are a ripoff. $140 a month for phone service? I was just talking with people from other countries, and most countries pay less than $40 a month for unlimited talk, text, and data. Sure, you have to buy your own phone, but there are no early termination fees, no contracts, and you can switch carriers as you please.
These contracts are distorting the market, and there is no real choice or competition in the cell phone market.
Non compliance
So the law against same sex marriage in the state of Florida was recently declared unconstitutional by a US district judge. In response, some clerks of court have declared that they will not issue same sex marriage licenses until they are forced to. Still other clerks have decided that they will no longer allow anyone to get married in the courthouse, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination.
I have two thoughts on this:
1 You are a government employee. You don't get to decide not to follow the law because it makes you uncomfortable, any more than this guy did. If performing same sex marriages makes you uncomfortable, get a new job. No one is forcing you to work there, and it isn't up to you.
2 Tactically, this is stupid. If same sex couples cannot get married in a government building because the government no longer performs ceremonies, then you set the stage for forcing the court to declare that officiants cannot discriminate, and this would force officials who hold ceremonies for churches to provide that service to same sex couples.
Duval County Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell said tells The Florida Times-Union that none of his staff members who currently officiate wedding ceremonies felt comfortable performing same-sex weddings... “It was decided as a team, as an office, this would be what we do so that there wouldn’t be any discrimination,” Fussell said. “The easiest way is to not do them at all.”... Fussell said he believed marriage “is between a man and a woman.” He added, “Personally it would go against my beliefs to perform a ceremony that is other than that.”
I have two thoughts on this:
1 You are a government employee. You don't get to decide not to follow the law because it makes you uncomfortable, any more than this guy did. If performing same sex marriages makes you uncomfortable, get a new job. No one is forcing you to work there, and it isn't up to you.
2 Tactically, this is stupid. If same sex couples cannot get married in a government building because the government no longer performs ceremonies, then you set the stage for forcing the court to declare that officiants cannot discriminate, and this would force officials who hold ceremonies for churches to provide that service to same sex couples.