On dealing with police.

If an officer tells you that you’re “not being detained” your next words are “Am I free to go?”

If the cop says yes your next words are: “Thank you officer, Goodbye.”

If they say anything other than “Goodbye” then you ARE being detained and are “under arrest” because they have arrested your movement going about your own life… and they just lied to you.

This disengenuous threat of arrest when you are already factually arrested is just one of the many psychological control tactics (gaslighting) which cops are trained in. It sets up (as designed to) a catch 22 where “technically” you’re not under arrest and so they don’t have to honor your Miranda demands for an attorney, or your refusal to answer questions, because if you stay you’ve mythically, and magically, “volunteered” to talk with them.

That claim IS Bullshit and it’s rank psychological manipulation. Here’s the proof that it’s bullshit from none other than Cornell University of Law:



An arrest is using legal authority to deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement.

If YOU don’t get to decide when you’re leaving then you ARE being detained (aka: arrested, per the above legal definition)

Synonyms for “arrest”

Words mean things. Those meanings aren’t fungible.

Greg Klebanoff’s answer to What is something police do not want the public to know?

The bottom line here is that you’re not looking to avoid arrest, you’re looking to force them to clearly and unambiguously identify (in a legally verifiable way) the REAL situation so that your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment Rights can’t be conveniently evaded.

Kris Rosvold’s answer to Which Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most commonly abused?

This cop’s statement here is also a huge logical fallacy called the Argument from Ambiguity:

Both conditions cannot possibly be true. And the truth is that they have stopped you from going about your business, so you are now either Arrested or Detained. It’s either A or B. The trick here is they’re trying to get you to play along with the false belief that if you give them what they want (information which may well incriminate you even if it appears not to) they’ll let you go.

It’s this level of bullshit. Kris Rosvold’s answer to Have you ever literally face-palmed in court?

Any cop telling you that you’re not detained or under arrest and then saying that you’ll be arrested if you leave has:

  1. Either placed you under defacto arrest/
  2. Or is bluffing in order to attempt to force you to surrender your Right of free movement and surrender your absolute Right to not talk to them.

Either way your reaction needs to be the same: “I don’t wish to answer your questions without my attorney present, and I’m done talking to you at this time; since you tell me that I’m not under arrest or detention I’m leaving. Goodbye.”

Then leave.

If they arrest you, or tell you that you’re being detained, then your legal situation is legally unambiguous and you can proceed accordingly:

Kris Rosvold’s answer to If you know you are doing something illegal and a cop stops you, what should be your first words to the officer?

If they allow you to walk/drive away then your legal situation is legally unambiguous and you go about your business.

Oh.. And no. I never, ever, agree to any searches no matter what the excuse is. They can FORCE a search upon me because they have guns, but I won’t ever agree to it because I don’t waive my rights for anyone.

Why? Cops, especially “good” cops, never admit it but the simple fact is that cops WILL lie all over themselves to CYA for empirically bad cops.

‘That didn’t happen’: Why father-son witnesses to Laquan McDonald shooting took on the Chicago police – Los Angeles Times

Enough. When I’m dealing with a cop I have zero ways to tell what sort they are; so the only way I can protect my self from the bad cops is to not talk to cops and not agree to ANY search.

Critical Notes:

If you are black or POC the rules about what and how are entirely different from what this white boy grew up with. That said, cops are becoming ever more fascist and whites are beginning to see some of the effects of that process. As may be, the largest driver I see in the difference between how whites and blacks get treated is perceived wealth mixed with systemic racism. By this I mean that an obviously wealthy person will get treated better, and often much better, than a non-wealthy person of the same race.. In most areas. There are still many areas of the US where white cops seem to take a black person being wealthy as a personal affront and treat such folks accordingly.

Harvard Professor Jailed; Officer Is Accused of Bias

Whether you’re white or POC, DO NOT go all Sovereign Citizen Idiot on a traffic stop. The reason for this is that in a traffic stop once that bubble gum machine lights up behind you, you HAVE been arrested in every legal sense. It’s fine to not answer questions other than the mechanics of providing your license, registration and insurance. But make no mistake: During a traffic stop you are, legally, under arrest for the investigation of a traffic infraction or a crime.

That case is dealt with here:

Kris Rosvold’s answer to If the cops create a roadblock and are searching every car (usually happens at late hours), is it advisable to refuse a search even though you have nothing to hide?

And here:

Kris Rosvold’s answer to If you know you are doing something illegal and a cop stops you, what should be your first words to the officer?

The raw and uncomfortable truth about school shootings and guns in society.

I am absolutely very concerned about school (or any other sort) shootings and I absolutely think that it’s a critical problem which we as a society must address.

Here’s my problem with the current rhetoric around these events:

I’m an Engineer and on the Aspie spectrum so I am incapable of operating based on emotion. I NEED Facts. I need measurable, verifiable, cold, hard, unforgiving Facts in order to construct a solution which might actually work, and those same facts say quite clearly that everything we’ve done so far has done nothing or has actually made the problem worse.

Ponder everything we’ve done to “control” this problem.

Now ponder the fact that during the exact same time frame where we added all these “controls” in the modern era (~1970 to Date) the frequency of these shootings has steadily and consistently INCREASED from once a decade to every other month. That’s an increase by a factor of ~130 even as the percentage of folks owning guns DECREASED by ~30%. Any sane person would expect (IF the availability of guns were the actual cause) the two percentages to track together, yet we’re seeing the exact opposite of that in real life.

Why don’t people understand that guns are the cause of mass shootings?

Let me say that again because the #DamnedFacts matter:

These shootings INCREASED by more than a factor of a hundred during the EXACT same time period that the percentage of families owning guns DECREASED by 30 percent.

According to one of the smartest guys to live on this dirt ball; the very definition of insanity lives in those who repeat the same actions but expect a different result each time. The results thus far speak for themselves.

These Facts tell this Engineer that one of two conditions exist:

  1. Reducing the percentage of folks who own guns is either causing, or is part of, the problem. Or.. (More likely)
  2. The percentage of folks who own guns has absolutely nothing to do with what is causing of the problem.

So now what do we do?

An Engineer will look at the OTHER conditions which could feed the problem..

In this case I’d start looking at how stressed individuals react to stressors and how folks with poor coping skills react to those stressors. I’d look at the totality of the lives of the vanishingly small percentage of folks who nut up this way and start asking questions about how I’d feel subjected to those conditions. (Yes, it really sucks that the “simple” “solution” doesn’t actually work! Sorry. Now let us figure out what might work and try that.)

First I’d recognize that it really is a vanishingly small percentage of folks who nut up this way. At MOST it’s a few dozen out of some 324 million people, and that’s spread over a period of almost 3 decades. This isn’t to minimize the deaths they caused, but to recognize that it’s a vanishingly small percentage of our population which is less than (6.17 E-7) or 0.000000617% of people who commit these atrocities. Even if we look at only gun owners we’re still below (1.85 E-6) or 0.00000185% of the population of gun owners.

Here’s where I’d start looking:

I’d look at the planned and designed increase in income and wealth inequality such that where ordinary citizens once owned almost 80% of stocks and now its 50% because we no longer have any cash to spare. Why less than half of Americans are investing in the stock market

I’d look at the imposed rules in their lives and their ability or inability to control the stressors which drive them around the bend.

Why Folks Won’t Work For a Sharecropper’s Wage

I’d look at their life history for things like systemically imposed poverty, being bullied, abusive bosses or spouses and whether their bullies/abusers were ever made to pay any price, and similar factors.

I’d look at whether they were punished for physically defending themselves against a bully or an abuser.. Which idiocy we seem to be doing in schools right now.

A short course in diagnostic logic:

In troubleshooting there’s a principal called “Divide and Conquer” which is the process of identifying the symptoms and then dividing the set of inputs based upon what could or could not cause those symptoms, then you discard those parts which couldn’t be the cause and focus only on those parts which could be the cause.

We know that guns, in and of themselves, are not the cause because we’ve measured the decrease in percentage of folks who own guns over the three decades when the frequency of shootings INCREASED by factor of 130 or so. That means we need to look at OTHER parts of the circuit for the failure point causing the symptoms.

Science and Engineering Principles do not lie. Ever.

Mainstream “News” Media absolutely DOES lie by both Commission and by Omission. Constantly.

Project Censored – The News that Didn’t Make the News and Why

What I find particularly interesting in this discussion is that only two “approved” positions are allowed to be discussed in any length on MSM around this issue:

  1. Guns are bad and you need to think of the CHILDREN!
  2. Paws OFF my guns!

What’s also interesting is that these two positions (which are the ONLY positions allowed to gain any traction on any MSM outlet) are the absolute most extremely polar opposite and divisive positions available.

I believe that is intentional; and given that just 5 multinational corporations own about 95% of all our media outlets outright, via a chain of “Russian Doll” style shell corporations, it would be fairly easy to do.. If it proves to be intentional then its also gaslighting.

Here’s who owns everything in the media today

Chart from article

It’s high time we all step out of this gaslighting, turn OFF those all the fucking idiot boxes, and start asking LOUDLY:

”Who profits from this shit?!”

Hint: It ain’t any ordinary citizens.

Essentially the current rhetoric from media and our government is blaming the ax because Lizzie Borden’s mom got 40 whacks. Let’s address the real problems here so we can find effective solutions!

Reply to “Religion is a personal thing!” apologists

While I absolutely agree that your religion, or lack thereof, should be a personal matter between you and your god (or lack of), theists have repeatedly over the course of history proven that they don’t consider this to be true… even today, and even in a supposedly secular society.

In my 52 years I have been discriminated against because I’m an atheist. I have never gone out proselytizing, yet I’ve been made a target for others doing that.

At various times in my life I’ve been assaulted, denied justice for those assaults, given the “shit duty”, and been forced to drive +30 miles for groceries and gas; all because I didn’t believe in the local version of the “right” church.

The “worst” I’ve ever done is met assault with self defense. For that I was told I’d be damned to eternal hell fire. When it’s verbal I walk away.

I’ve watched fiat laws be repeatedly enacted, denying the Rights of fellow Citizens, on Local, State, and Federal levels.

I’ve watched psychopathic “holy” folks, assault and murder fellow Citizens “in the Holy Name Of God”; and THEN to cap it all off I’ve watched those psychopaths be hidden from prosecution, and actually defended by other “holy” psychopaths!

I’ve watched these psychopaths, and their churches, then be “defended” by the larger Christian community because “they’re only human after all”.

I’ve watched “holy” priests and pastors, and bishops, batter and sexually abuse children (repeatedly) and then be actively hidden from prosecution and defended by their church and congregations…. by the way there is a Legal term for this last… It’s called “Aiding and Abetting a Felon in the Commission of a Felony.” The prison term is generally between 1 year and 1/2 the term for the commission of the actual crime(s). Yet, because of this protection racket very few of the criminals were ever brought to justice, and their victims are STILL trying to get recompense of some sort… 30 years later.

So, yes, it should absolutely be a private matter but theists keep forcing it into the public sphere by their actions, and by their abject, repeated, and intentional, failures to call out the transgressors amongst them!

All of this, and more, I’ve witnessed in just the 52 years I’ve been on this earth. And I haven’t even gotten to History yet.

The Spanish Inquisition
The Crusades
The Salem Witch Trials
The fiat State laws that legislators must belong to the “right” church.
Then there’s these “few hundred items:




So, you tell me: Since we Citizens are so constantly, and continuously, assaulted by the actions like these (and have been since forever) and then those crimes are consistently “defended” or “conveniently ignored” by the religious “holy” folks, what are we reasonably to do? How are we to “act reasonable” in the face of such a long and “distinguished” history of being minimized, assaulted, murdered, and ethnically “cleansed”?
Seriously? How?

I’ve had theists, of several sects, who knew damned good and well that they and their “good news” was neither needed nor wanted walk blithely into my posted and gated property, through a closed and clearly posted gate, to “deliver their good news” every week for six long months until I had them arrested.
This is called… intimidation tactics.
Acting without due care or concern.

“He blithely ignored the law”
“They blithely trespassed”

Bottom line: IF and when theists make it a personal matter, and actively start cleaning up their own messes instead of forcing society to do so with Our courts, I might consider your (blatantly false) implied assertion of “It’s between me and god, leave us alone” to be reasonable. That is… when and if your psychopathic zealots quit trying in a dozen different ways, through fiat law and custom, to RAM Your beliefs down My throat, then and only then shall I consider it a “personal matter”.

So long as I am forced to tolerate Your beliefs as law or custom in My life… you’d best pack several lunches, you’ve got a looong day ahead!

The reality of religion is serf control

Full disclosure: I’m a lifelong atheist (small “a”) because I’ve read the Bible.

While I agree that religion can have some few beneficial effects on a society, I have a slightly different take on the advantages and disadvantages of religion from a human nature perspective because I look at the ACTIONS of an organization and I ask “#WhoProfitsFromThisShit?!”

Unless we’re talking about the smallish subset of humanity who have no internal ethical compass, the answer to that question is rarely “Ordinary people.”

The disadvantages for me are several:

  • Religion promotes magical thinking as a “solution” to moral and ethical problems. That is, it asserts that I am to believe such and so because “God (supposedly) said so.” The glaring problem here is that much of what is claimed as “Gods Holy Word” is actually just the historical musings of powerful old men seeking more power over the serfs.
  • Religion is often greedy in (socially) demanding a 10% tithe from even those who are already at or below subsistence level. (Useful to priests and kings when harvests are bad).
  • It stifles freedom of thought by listing what your morals are to be, and by regarding any independent thought as challenging “The Holy Word of God.”
  • Religion uses LOTS of circular logic and appeals to authority to justify it’s existence.
  • It uses social approbation as a second level tool to insure that compliance.
  • It promotes letting evil folks escape without punishment here and now by asserting that “it’s not your job to punish them” and that they’ll “get theirs” in some mythical afterlife (Very, very useful for the wealthy folks oppressing the serfs).
  • It promotes authoritarianism in requiring compliance to dogma.
  • It sets up a Top Class (priests) who can scare you into compliance when all els fails
  • If the boss tells you to do something and you don’t you might loose your job. Meh… If your God, or one who claims to be it’s representative, tells you to do something and you don’t you “Go to Hell”… forever. Not “Meh” if you believe in such things.
  • It causes folks to live in fear.
  • It causes folks to “just shut up and accept” whatever their priests claim is “what God wants you to do”… no matter how little sense it makes in light of your morals, or your life experience. A prime example of this is found in the calls for forgiveness from within the Catholic Church, for their child molesting priests and those who protected them.
  • It causes folks to physically attack other folks over words and different beliefs.
    It does this by using a “Them vs. Us” mentality.

Now… on the plus side.

  • The simple fact is that there are a fairly large percentage of folks who need the apparent certainty of believing that there’s a god which is watching out for them.
    Religion gives them comfort… However false that comfort appears to me, it has a great value to them.
  • It can promote a sense of community, and of shared goodness.
  • It can be used to help those less fortunate, though in my experience that help usually comes with serious strings attached such as conditions that you comply with their belief system… or at least act like you do.

Separating Religion and State is intentional and there’s no reason to change it.

*DEEP sigh*

Okay, so we’ll break it down one more time:

From Wiki (yes, it’s that easy to find):
Here’s what the Constitution actually SAYS in the First Amendment:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1]

The Prohibition:
Congress shall make no law respecting
Okay… so respecting about, or pertaining, to WHAT?

Part 1, before the comma:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
So we know that respecting means “about or pertaining to”…
SO… Congress is as of this point under a Blanket Prohibition which specifically prohibits them from using Law to speak about an establishment of religion… can’t say ANYTHING in Law, either for it or against it.

What’s an establishment?
So… here’s that bit:

[ih-stab-lish-muhnt] Show IPA noun
1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the ): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5. ( often initial capital letter ) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc. (usually preceded by the ): the literary Establishment.

From Jon Grouberts’ wifes’ hard copy of Blacks Dictionary of law regarding The Establishment Clause;

Such language prohibits a state or the federal government from setting up a church, or passing laws which aid one, or all, religions, or giving preference to one religion, or forcing belief or disbelief in any religion.”

So to translate this into modern English:
Congress may not EVER use Law to speak about Religion, they also may not EVER limit the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the Press, or restrict the Right of the People to peaceably assemble to demand a redress of grievances from the government.”

Seems pretty crystal clear to me. In short – Government may NOT ever use Law to support religion, but they ALSO can not ever use Law to stop you from supporting it in your private* life.

*Private life = as a private Citizen, as opposed to as a member of our government.

To put a finer point on it:
You’re more than welcome to pray or read your holy book pretty much anytime and anywhere you please, but you are not permitted to use a government position (say as a court clerk or publicly funded school teacher) to force others to comply with your beliefs.

So… if you want to read your bible on your lunch… fine. If you want to refuse to issue marriage licenses for gays in a State where gay marriage is legal… not fine. This last is called “Using a government position in an attempt to enforce your religious beliefs upon others.”

As to claims that “This doesn’t apply to the States.”

Sorry, wrong. If for no other reason than the Fact that marriage is, under the Law, a privilege* which offers immunities.**

Here’s the full Answer to that blatantly false claim…

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since the several States explicitly agreed to be legally bound by this language through the process of Ratification…. Yes, sorry, it does apply. Further, because of the explicit agreement from the several States, it applies directly and specifically to the States.

For those unclear on the concept:

Approval or confirmation of a previous contract or other act that would not otherwise be binding in the absence of such approval. If an employer ratifies the unauthorized acts of an employee, those actions become binding on the employer. A person who is under the legal age to enter into a contract may ratify (and thereby adopt) the contract when he or she reaches majority, or may refuse to honor the contract without obligation.

We Ratified this Amendment (= change or revision) in 1868 and though large parts of the provisions have been un-enforced the actual words still mean the exact same thing: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge (means injure, limit, or damage) the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States,…”
Note carefully that there are precisely zero exceptions contained in this language. That’s intentional!

The other reason we think this limitation is in the First Amendment to Our Constitution is because (as noted here http://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-think-that-separation-of-church-and-state-is-in-the-United-States-Constitution/answer/Kris-Rosvold-1/comment/11987086?srid=X0qr&share=1 and thanks for the heads up to Roger Simpson) one of the folks who wrote our Constitution said as much repeatedly.

From the above comment:

Simply put, President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving. In his letter, he wrote that:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

As to what he meant by that, it is easy to see. Jefferson was the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (of which he was more proud than writing the Declaration of Independence), which states:

“… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities”

I’ve had some additional thoughts come up as a result of the comments and discussions below…

First is that I glossed over the free exercise bit, so here it is. I’d note that this part seems just as absolute as the rest does.
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This, quite blatantly prohibits federal government; and since the 14th Amendment, ALL government, from doing 2 things:
1) Saying that you can’t practice your religion as a private Citizen.
2) Imposing ANY form of religion which you didn’t choose upon you.

So this sword of the First Amendment cuts both ways, as we’ve seen in the cases of American Indian religions which have successfully challenged drug laws with this.

*Reply to an appologist claiming that the Constitution allows religion in Law by using quotes from the original body of the Constitution*

Yes, that’s the original language which was changed by Amendment via Ratification by the States.

Everything religious apologists claim about the original words of Our Constitution WAS true. It was also CHANGED in 1868, BECAUSE they were seeing a de facto trend in government (State and Federal) towards religious activism using laws and regulations. This change was the First Amendment which says, quite clearly:
“Congress shall make no law respecting (about) an establishment (organization in general) of religion…”

The direct, semantic, translation of that to modern language is, as I said, “Congress shall not use Law to speak about Religion. Neither for it, nor against it.”

Since this language was explicitly agreed to (Ratified) by the several States and the language of the 14th Amendment was also Ratified, that change in the First Amendment also applies to States.

Basically what the 14th says is that ALL Citizens of any State are also Citizens of the USA. Then it goes on to say that States may offer Citizens of the United States MORE Rights and Protections than the US Constitution does; but may not ever offer fewer rights and protections that the United States Constitution does.

Because the Several States explicitly, and legally, agreed to this language in the 14th Amendment through Ratification of it, those changes to Our Constitution apply directly to the States.

Now: Here’s the grand convenient “error” so many religious apologists make in this area of discussion…

The United States Constitution and its Amendments (means changes to) are not, in any way, shape, or form, “different things.”

These Amendments are all part and parcel of the same supreme law. We merely retain the original (superseded/changed by Amendment) language, by tradition and intent, so that everyone (Citizens and Legislators) can track these changes and monitor them.

I’d also note that the intent of the First Amendment is made even clearer because one of the unchanged parts of the original Constitution (Article 6 last paragraph) also says, quite clearly, that:

“… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This paragraph is especially interesting in that, while it deals specifically with the issue of Religion in Government that the First Amendment addresses, it was intentionally left unchanged by the Amendment.

IF what religious apologists claim were true, (that religion belongs in our government) then any sane, reasonable, persons would have addressed and changed this Article 6 prohibition on religious tests with the First Amendment.
They, most emphatically, did not do that in the First Amendment which was Ratified (explicitly agreed to by the several States) just 4 years after the signing of the original Constitution.

With these Facts included in the picture, it is an utterly disengenuious obfuscation to claim that there was ANY intention to permit religion any entre into our government because this “oops we missed that bit” of the Bill of Rights just 4 years later would have been the perfect opportunity to make that clear.

Instead they chose to bolt the door, after slamming it on religion in government, by saying “Congress shall pass no Law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Sorry there’s just zero wiggle room in these Facts, no matter how badly apologists want to “create” some.

This has been an awesome, incredibly valuable, discussion and I’m grateful to this community for bringing a large dose of sanity, fact and reason to the comments below; in what is a very difficult, emotionally fraught discussion. Kudos to all!

The truth about policing

Whenever a cop abuses their authority (which.. To be perfectly clear is only LOANED to them by us in our name) to harm a person who’s done nothing wrong there’s several places I place the blame:

  • First and foremost the lions share of the blame goes to the cop who abused their authority and their oath to protect our Constitution.
  • The next largest share of the blame goes to the ostensibly good cops who struck themselves blind and mute in order to protect the false sanctity of the Thin Blue Line, in the exact same way Catholic bishops did to CYA for child molesters in the church.
  • Don’t try to tell me this shit of cops LYING doesn’t happen or that it’s “an aberration.” It isn’t and we both know it. I’m sorry the Truth hurts folks, and standing silent in the face of Evil IS Evil! Zero excuses. If y’all want to point at a mess on my kitchen counter, y’all need to clean your OWN damned house first.
  • https://www.ocala.com/news/20180920/250-plus-drug-cases-in-question-jackson-co-deputy-fired-for-planting-evidence
  • Next the balance of the blame goes to the ass hats who decided it was a good idea to train cops to believe that ordinary citizens are The Enemy.
  • The fuck wad cuntmuffins who thought that allowing corporate fascists to profit from human misery was A Okay.
  • I also blame every congresscritter whose ever supported the fascist, racist, false flag, CIA supplied , War on Drugs .
  • (Looking STRAIGHT at you here Hillary)Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost the Same Amount of Prison Lobbyist Donations

Michael A Woods Jr called this shit out when he blew the whistle on the entire Boston PD as an anonymous Twitter account 4 years ago, and more recently out in the open.

Y’all want my respect? Y’all want my cooperation? EARN IT by standing T.F. Up when you run across these Shitweasels As Michael A Woods Jr did. Y’all know who they are as well as I do. Probably better.

As Answered: When a cop abuses his power and hurts private citizens do you blame the cop or system that trained him?

Our NBFU Gig Economy

I’ve been watching what we’re calling the gig economy since its beginning and it’s a really interesting thing.

I need to say up front, as a life long Electical Engineer and Field Service Technician, that I have little to no respect for the field of Economics Theory as a “science” because it really isn’t a science and isn’t used or empirically tested as actual Scientific Theory would be. This Fact makes Economic Theory an art rather than a science every bit as much as painting pictures or sculpting marble is an art. Arts don’t require any relationship to verifiable, testable, disprovable, fact. Science does.

Ergo: Economic Theory is strictly an art, and yes; I will fight you on this until such time as the parameters and results of Economic Theories can be empirically tested in the lab using instrumentation and without the use of psychology (another art).

From: xkcd

As with traditional jobs, and depending entirely upon how it’s structured, gig work can be a huge boon to both the buyer and the worker, or it can serve the buyer and absolutely screw the worker.

Here’s the difference between those two outcomes.

When applied through an open medium like Craigslist, (which is where this whole thing started in the modern age) gig jobs and gig skills get advertised and organically matched in a way which serves both the buyer and seller. The seller has complete control over the wage they get and the buyer has complete control over the wage they pay. Where these two meet a gig job is created via mutual agreement. If the wage offered is too low there’s an opportunity for the seller to counter-offer a higher wage or other concessions. If the wage demanded is too high there’s an opportunity for the buyer to offer a lower wage or other inducements.. But.. And here’s the critical part:

If there is a mismatch where the sellers don’t feel served by the terms offered, the job goes begging; and this metric applies in BOTH sides of the transaction equally.

This is the best case for a gig job and a gig worker. It’s essentially equivalent to walking into a shop electronically and negotiating with the owner to have a table built. This process allows the seller to account for all their costs and profit in setting the end price. It ALSO allows the buyer to limit price according to their budget for the task. Now let’s look at the worst case:

Uber and Lyft

With these two “Gig-Economy” jobs an app is used to “match” buyers and sellers with a dictated pay scale based upon hidden demand metrics which the buyer and seller each have zero control over except to walk away from the gig on offer. There’s no opportunity to negotiate terms or rate for either party. There’s no opportunity to account for your costs in providing a service or product, and there’s no opportunity to limit costs by offering better non-cash terms. The (variable) rate paid is dictated to both parties by the company and the company skims a percentage of the transaction (rather than a flat fee as Craigslist does) right off the top.

This dynamic introduced by the app (which is designed into it) changes the ground level dynamic of the exchange from one where both the buyer and seller get to account for their needs in negotiating a match into one where the buyer and seller are forced to an Accept Or Reject choice rather than a true gig where the terms are negotiated.

There’s also a huge, and onerous, list of requirements dictated by the company, and a ranking/buyer feedback component, without a matching seller ranking/feedback component, which effectively places all power to dictate terms in the hands of the buyer without any regard for the sellers fixed costs.

This is the problem, and that single mismatch of power in the transaction makes the Gig-Economy a straight rip-off from the worker’s perspective.

If Lyft and Uber didn’t have those requirements they dictate it might be a marginally better deal for the worker but those mandates are there.

Here’s the difference: In a cab company there are fixed expenses and if the company is to survive it MUST account for those vehicle, insurance, taxes, fuel, maintenance, medallion (permit), and etc. expenses in its rates to customers.

With the gig app (as it’s currently set up) there’s zero need from the company’s standpoint, (or more importantly the buyers standpoint) to account for any of those things except when they hit the point where sellers start walking away completely.

Here’s what those requirements looked like in ‘14.

Lyft says its drivers can make $35 an hour. I spent a week driving to see if that’s true.

This set up transfers ALL the legitimate costs of running a business from the company to the workers (sellers) and, with the same hand, takes away the ability of the worker (seller) to negotiate any terms to account for their fixed costs in their wage.

The results are that Lyft and Uber get to skim pure profits off of transactions without having to pay for any maintenance or equipment costs.

This tactic is directly equivalent to a factory owner forcing workers to buy the machines making the product and then refusing to perform, or pay for, any maintenance of that equipment.

Which gives us this today:

‘Uber is a rip-off for its drivers and the public’: Cab Drivers Protest Rideshares in Chicago

Federal Lawsuit: Lyft drivers being underpaid by company

Greedy Lying Bastards