Episode-1478- Listener Calls for 12-5-14 — 37 Comments

  1. On the home heat options: Jack your advice on the Mr Heater is exactly what we do. I find it distributes the heat better when you use the integrated fan … but that consumes 6 C-cells at a time…

    However, if you use the optional Mr Heater 6V AC cord (link below) instead of C-cells, and connect the cord to a Steven Harris battery bank/inverter, it will obviously run for much longer and is much more cost effective:

  2. Just yesterday the city of Powder Springs Georgia began equipping police officers with body cameras. I for one do not think this is going to be the solution a lot of people are hoping for. You may be right when you mention perhaps we the people should begin equipping ourselves with the same body cams. As you said you video, I video.

    More importantly remember situation awareness, don’t go stupid places, with stupid people doing stupid things.

  3. Hey Jack, Thanks for the positive feedback on my furnace wiring video, been a long time listener since around episode 80, my forum handle is mxitman. If anyone has a question regarding doing this feel free to email me or see the many comments I have on these videos on the site, I also sell single circuit 15A transfer switches on my business site;

    Jack do you have a gas furnace at your current place?

  4. If the guy has natural gas he should look into a NG space heater. We have a 10K btu unit from Kozy that we use for suplament heat. They even have really small ones for shacks, rv’s, or small rooms.

  5. Jack, Re Garner choke hold death, perhaps the review of the coroner’s report may be useful, Not that removes or refutes anything as to police brutality.
    Not wanting to provoke, but more information is better.

    Thanks for all you do, taking the time to read this and all other things aside, I hope you, your family and those outside of your family, that you care about are healthy, enjoying family and all have blessed gifts of the Holidays, Life and Liberty.

    • Here is my view, officers used a choke hold to subdue a guy for allegedly selling loose cigarettes. To do so they used a choke hold which THEIR OWN DEPARTMENT banned and due to this a man with no record of ANY VIOLENT OFFENSE EVER IN HIS LIFE is dead.

      The coroner’s report says he died because of his health and the stress from the choke hold. In other words if they did the same thing to me, I would not have died.

      Yea well, you know what, that doesn’t matter and it doesn’t make the action non criminal. The proper charge would be manslaughter along with a slew of other charges like breech of procedure, abuse of power, etc.

      If I did this to you, and the coroner said you only died because of your health, I would be charged with manslaughter. Wearing a badge and a uniform doesn’t absolve you from following the law or being accountable to it.

      Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.

      I would say this fits the bill if not.

      Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

      Well that is a bare minimum of what occurred here.

      Let’s assume my Drivers License requires me to wear glasses like it does. I don’t follow procedure and I don’t see you and I hit you and kill you. When I do it turns out you are physically impaired and the investigation states that if you were of full health likely you’d not have died. However my breech of procedure is part of the problem, it is also probable that you’d not have died if I wore my glasses and followed the law.

      Guess what, I am going to prison for your death. Why are these officers granted special consideration?

      Yea more information is good, in this case it doesn’t change the criminal behavior which was recorded on video.

      Oh and by the way the ONLY PERSON charged with a crime in this event, was the guy that shot the video, LET THAT SINK IN, now that you have MORE INFORMATION.

    • In regards to Eric G, I actually had to find out what loosies were. I thought he was selling cigarettes he bought from the store. No, thats not it at all. He was selling what some might call “black market cigarettes”. They have not been given an excise stamp yet. Basically, the king wants his money!!!!! And thats why the kept going after him. Thats why they knew him. He had been arrested for this before and was out on bail for it. He wasn’t targeted because he was black. He was targeted because he was a lifelong petty criminal. Again, the king wants his money. Some people get this and some don’t: laws are enforced by the point of a gun. If you don’t pay the king his tax, his servants will come find you and make you pay him his tax.
      I agree that at least the guy applying the chokehold should face jail time. But I also agree with something else you said back a few month. Don’t resist arrest. You said something along the lines of, “If you resist arrest, the police will make sure you have a bad day.” Well Eric Garner’s bad day ended in death. It’s a tragedy.

  6. Here is more to think about regarding the Garner death. More in the article but I’ll copy a bit here.

    Here’s the issue as seen by AceOfSpades:

    …we actually pay them [the police] to use force when a law-breaking suspect (even one breaking a trivial law) resists arrest. That is the job we’ve given them.

    To say this guy is guilty of murder or manslaughter seems to me to be a case of scapegoating the people we’ve tasked with implementing a policy that we have imposed ourselves.

    If trivial laws should not provide grounds for arrest, We should change the laws to say so.

    If cops should just let a non-compliant but non-felony suspect go if he resists arrest, we should make that officially part of their job description.

  7. Hey Jack, I agree 100% with your analysis re police homicides. Thank you for so passionately bringing this to your audience! I also agree it is not a black/white thing but I do think it’s being framed that way because of “broken windows” policing that focuses on certain neighborhood (usually minority neighborhoods). Matt Taibbi recently wrote a fine article about this in the Rolling Stone. Taibbi’s article segues with your observations, i.e., broken window policing focuses on petty infractions (like selling loose cigarettes) while Wall Street criminals can steal without any repercussions. Perfect us v. them divide and conquer. And btw, for those who somehow think Eric Garner “asked for it,” Taibbi’s article has a link to the entire episode with Mr. Garner, not just the choke hold part. I can’t imagine someone watching that video and still believing Mr. Garner got what he deserved for disobeying the police.

  8. Advice on cooking offal

    I did this and my wife didn’t even noticed. Mince 70% been 30% kidney / liver. My wife actually really like the mince. ( I didn’t tell her until some time after). It’s great because it’s a stronger flaver but keeps the texture of beef

    Hope this helps

  9. WOW! You aint kidding, bulk ammo will make your neck snap because they are so fast.
    Made my first order yesterday. Their prices for 1,000 rnds were 20$ cheaper than other online dealers and it arrived this morning, on Saturday.
    Thanks Jack

  10. Confirming that inflation has really started kicking up in Russia the past week. My inlaws live in the Volga region of Russia near Kazan. The prices have risen enough that human psychology has taken hold and p now people are now crowding the shops trying to unload their cash, stock up on goods, before the price rises further. Unfortunately I don’t have hard numbers to back this up, but this is what we are hearing from my in-laws.

  11. Hey Jack thanks for taking my call about my soil in NJ. I should have asked you about it when we planted your Food Forest back in April. Your answer motivated me again to build my little, PermaEthos style, urban food forest. The question after me was also helpful since i’m trying my hardest to build a homestead here in Jersey City, NJ with all the obstacles we face in a city (tell Josiah it’s a homestead now because I now have chickens) lol

    Thanks again for helping me set myself free.

  12. One note on police body cameras. Per your note that this would remove the ability of police to use judgement to ignore minor infractions which you saw as a negative, but I see that as a positive.

    I can’t tell you how many people I know that get out of trouble and even recklessness by using PBA or FOP cards. As we have seen in the news lately that people with power expect police to use their “judgement” to get them off offences, so I welcome cameras. If that means that now powerful people and beautiful women are liable for the same police stops as the rest of us, then I’m fine with that. Maybe it will result in silly laws being overturned when powerful people realize they are just as vulnerable as the rest of us.

    • I am NEITHER powerful or beautiful and I have been let go on several minor infractions. One in particular that when I was a young teen could have completely fucked up my life. But an officer used his judgement and took me to my Dad vs. jail. I am forever grateful to this man. Think about that, let it sink in!

      Had I been taken in for this infraction I likely would have not be able to enlist in the military. Take that away and likely my life would be a train wreck like the rest of my family. You’d have no TSP just as a start. Over the years I have employed close to 100 people, mentored dozens, etc.

  13. I mean you no ill will and am actually also thankful to that officer for his actions, but even in the face of informed self interest, I can’t support the uneven application of laws.

    I’m horrified at the idea that your life or any life could be ruined by a youthful indiscretion/screw-up, but I feel that part of the reason that those laws are still on the books is that powerful people know that their friends will not be affected. If that were the case before your indiscretion then I would hope that either the law was changed or that the judge would step in and drop the charges and realize that 99% of kids do stupid things and that should not ruin their lives or maybe the military would be forced to change their regs as 99% of kids do stupid things and they still need recruits so they have to accept reality.

    I think some of this is becoming the case for social media indiscretions like pictures posted of people drinking. At first it was damning, but soon the near ubiquity dulled the effect to white noise.

    So as I am forever grateful to that man for his choice, and the gifts that that choice has lately brought me, I can’t help think of all the other people who didn’t get that chance or for the total screw-ups who grew up with a permanent “get-out-of-jail-free” card that lead them to seriously hurt others in later life. Of the later, I known several. One then ended three lives. So maybe I am wrong, but I am not completely wrong.

    • Officers using PERSONAL JUDGEMENT is part of a long history of OFFICERS OF THE PEACE using discretion.

      Cameras will likely ruin this, I have spoken to many officers that agree. They are not really opposed to cameras by and large by the way but simply point this out as the reality.

    • My reaction to this is it seems you have an undue respect for “laws” especially given the evidence otherwise. We should view laws and their application how it actually exists rather than how we think they exist or should exist. 18th century philosophers and men really seemed to enshrine the thinking we have today for laws as being the way we should organize and conduct business. Rule of law, as compared to rule of man. The reality is law is a concept that is applied via men, therefore laws don’t fix our problems, people do. Further look everywhere around you at ever increasing laws that are quite unjust. Yet we need application of them? I’m sure there are laws you think should be taken off the books, but should we still apply them? Saying yes would imply that the process overrules reality.

      If by saying that the laws don’t apply to the rich, they why would this change anything? All sorts of people who are rich get charged with things yet never see a court room let alone a conviction even with overwhelming evidence. Body cameras don’t change that. It isn’t as though the body cameras will be posted on Youtube live for the world to watch every event unfold. For one that would create the ever increasing conditions of mob rule and reduce the ability to get a fair trial. (Also a concept and requires actions of men). It’s just another annoyance, added regulation, and primarily another money sink by tax payers.

      The reality is neither rule of man nor rule of law are best. Insert “checks and balances”. I think the reality is checks and balances is really an abstract concept that encapsulates legal and non-legal systems.

      One last comment. I find that, and have said before, that laws are generally used by police officers to contain those whom they don’t know. The smaller the town the more officers might use alternative techniques than just “going by the books”. This is the value of having local experience and is extremely difficult to fake. You either know somebody or you don’t. I might also throw in the point that this all is FURTHER complicated when we can’t even point to a victim in MOST “crimes”.

    • Re-reading what I wrote I wanted to add this after this line.
      “It’s just another annoyance, added regulation, and primarily another money sink by tax payers.”

      With ONLY the intent of giving the ILLUSION of fairness, safety and accountability in accordance with the law. I say that with extreme sigh at the end. (Insert DHS)

      Who will profit? Camera makers, tactical weapons companies, and elites
      Who will lose? Everyone else.

  14. Thank you, Keith, for entertaining my “offal” sense of humor. Since I called in my question, I ended up with another 30 or 40 pounds of offal as none of the other customers wanted theirs. It pays to develop a relationship with your local farmer! There are some Christmas parties coming up, so it is a great time to test my pate on unsuspecting victims!
    Will from Colorado- I volunteered as a cook for the Mount Washington Observatory, elevation 6288 feet and “Home of the World’s Worst Weather”. Previous volunteer cooks put a bit of work into debugging their baked recipes, which were posted on the bread machine. I am gluten-intolerant so I couldn’t eat what I baked but the finished products looked ok and the crew liked them. If anyone is looking for an adventure, I recommend looking into being a volunteer at the observatory. The experience was “Wicked Cool”, as they say here in New England.
    Re: spent brewing grains – I would grow mushrooms in the grain and then compost the grains when they no longer support mushrooms.
    Re: Cop Cameras – some of these have a blur and mute capability, which can be used to the cop’s advantage and the suspect’s detriment. I also expect to see cameras conveniently be forgotten, malfunction, etc.
    Paul – thank you for the suggestion on the minced beef liver.

  15. I don’t think I have any illusions about laws, but your long dissertation misses the point. You seem to make the assumption that laws are evil so granting the ability for an officer to not enforce a law is good. I would agree that many laws are bad, but if you allow uneven application of those laws then you place undo power in the hands of police. Jack’s note that police do not support this idea is not a strong argument because it doesn’t dispute my statement that it allows a few people “get-out-of-jail-free” cards.

    If I was a policeman then I would certainly be interested in having the ability to hand a card or a placard to my family and friends that would keep them from ever getting tickets and possibly avoid jail time. I would definitely like the perk that I could drive recklessly and probably not be accountable for my actions. Your statement that police use laws on people they don’t know, but the truth is they use it on people they don’t like. Police are people and thus saddled with all the standard human flaws, so should not be granted excessive power.

    I knew a girl who said she wanted to drive down to Mississippi from NJ for a weekend and wanted to know if a friend and I wanted to come along and help with the driving. I had time off so we went. She ended up doing most of the driving and we AVERAGED over 100 mph the whole trip to make it there in record time. We would have made better time but the efficiency of her truck was rather low at over 130 mph so we had to stop for gas frequently. Also I think we were stopped by police about 6 times during the trip, but she received no tickets and only the the most tentative of warnings. Upon arrival we found out the real story, that she was stalking an old boyfriend who had moved on. She then got very drunk and wanted to drive home that night. The only reason she didn’t was that I wrestled her keys away from her and then wrestled her spare key from her.

    At my wedding I invited people from my job. One of whom was also a policeman who we hired for security work. I knew that he was usually armed and I informed him clearly and I believe fairly that if he came, he could either drink OR carry, NOT BOTH. He came, he drank and he carried to the point of collapsing and being carried off.

    My point is that when influential people can rely on not being held accountable then bad laws are more likely to stay on the books. Your statement that many rich people can still avoid consequences is true but actually reinforces my argument. This step may not solve anything, but I can’t see how greater transparency is not a step in the right direction. Is it possible as in Jack’s case the step could ensnare those who should be let off, yes, and that is bad, but it is also possible that it will ensnare those who would have gotten off and by getting off see they have no accountability for their actions. This allows politicians to create laws that they themselves are not accountable to and that leads to very bad laws.

    • To be blunt your assertion that every rich person or every influential person can just get of scott free makes responding to this pointless. As your assertion is simply not true, there really isn’t any point to it. There are governors, mayors and congressmen in Federal Prison right now. Further those that get away with shit (many do) wouldn’t not get away with it due to officers wearing cameras.

      In fact where there is video of high public official doing stupid shit and breaking the law, the only person facing indictment now is another high public official that did something about it.

      You are arguing two stances that will be covered in today’s show, a fallacy of omission and a logical fallacy.

    • Transparacy would be a step in the right direction. However until they say that all video footage from these cameras will be available for public scrutiny then this is not an increase in transparency. It is an increase in tyranny.
      You seem to believe that imperfect as it is this will somehow lead to fairness. The other posters have already explained to you why it cant happen that way.
      Now i will tell you how or government hopes it will happen (btw if the masses get wise to this and stop it, they wont care because this is just one egg intended to increase their control and they have a lot of baskets) We will see an increase in arrests and tickets for minor infractions. Our governing body and the pawns in the main steam media will site these stats as proof of the effectiveness of cameras for increaded productivity and accountability of individuals. They will stress the need for this kind of accountability on all of the public sector. They will spend a few years passing voluntary laws that make it so employers can, if they choose, force employees to wear cameras. We will then hear the same diatribe from the news about the stats from these voluntary compliers.
      Before you know what happened it won’t be voluntary any more and they will be trying to spread it to the private sector. This isn’t tin foil hat talk it is what they do with every law. They do it a little bit at a time so that we wont complain about the size of the bite. Only after we are doomed will the masses notice the poison in those bites.

      • This is a valid point that I should have gotten myself as I oversee the cameras for my company. No one will be looking at these recordings unless a specific event warrants it, so it probably won’t have any effect on police letting people off. I guess the only way to see the tapes would be for legal depositions which wouldn’t happen without an arrest.

    • “You seem to make the assumption that laws are evil”
      That is quite the leap. Stating the observation that anybody can see and stating the realities of the way “the world is”, is very different than making a claim about “good and evil”. It’s neither and that’s what I was trying to show you.

      “so granting the ability for an officer to not enforce a law is good”
      What you fail to realize, which is obvious from this statement, is that no laws, protocol or anything else does or does not prevent another human being from doing anything. They can (and do) make all sorts of protocols, but that doesn’t change the fact that by being the “long arm of the law”, by its intrinsic nature, requires them to make “judgments” of what is and isn’t. No amount of wishing this away will change that. It’s the same as the constitution forbids all sorts of activities that the federal government does anyways. It’s just paper, it requires people to enforce them. Making another law or another process or legal check and balance will not force the adherence to anything.

      “but if you allow uneven application of those laws then you place undo power in the hands of police”
      This is an opinion, not a fact of reality. Even if you remove the opinionated word “undo” from the sentence, it doesn’t change the fact that this is already the case. At no point in time will this ever change. Laws and protocols do not change this. Rule of Law is a concept, not a reality. It is intrinsically linked to a human being making a judgement whether or not they’re going to do or not to do something. Who is going to watch over them? More cops? Cops of cops? (Inspecting generals) I alluded to this problem in the above reply, which you didn’t touch on. Who is going to review these tapes? The superior (yeah right). The police chief. (not enough time). Lawyers? The public? The public would be the only reasonable possibility, but I’d venture to say that is a can of worms and a half. (I stated above, it only leads to more mob rule)

      “that it allows a few people “get-out-of-jail-free” cards.”
      A judge can grant this. A governor can grant this. A president can grant this. Jurors can grant this. I’ll iterate it again, no change in protocol or devices will change the fact police have and will always have this “power”. Cameras in particular are not a good tool for understanding context, and if we can barely tell context from a court room of witnesses and testimony, a camera isn’t going to do much either.

      “….ability to hand a card or a placard to my family and friends that would keep them from ever getting tickets and possibly avoid jail time”
      This is such an eye rolling level of assumption about how the real world works. I can point to specific cases where cops loooove to go tough on people who think they get some sort of “card” to get out of jail. Just because “it happens” doesn’t mean its everywhere.

      I would further suggest you re-read what you’re writing because it comes off to me that your personal morality is quite crooked. I’m not trying to “go at it with you”, but I personally would never have written such a statement which is why it kind of shocked me. I may suggest people circumnavigate laws they disagree with, or do things behind closed doors, or perhaps do things they feel should be legal as an act of protest, but you’re not going to see me advocating breaking the law and getting away with it because I personally can enable it (as being a cop). I don’t WANT the authority to grant or waive a magic wand to get away with “whatever i want regardless”. I don’t WANT the authority to tell everyone else fuck off when I, a spouse, or some dumb dipshit son of mine does something and gets caught. If you believe right is right and wrong is wrong, why on earth would you state you would be interested in legally doing wrong?

      Are cops and “the high up” breaking the law and getting away with it or is it that you believe is the case? You’re saying greater transparency, but its not greater transparency, its an illusion. It’s like saying because the federal reserve “releases minutes” and does all sorts of press statements that it “increases transparency”. It doesn’t change the fact that all decisions and actions conducted are done behind closed doors. Why specifically was somebody let off or a case dropped? A camera isn’t going to tell you that. I’d venture to suggest that transparency, in general, is another illusion.

      I’m not sure how your stories really help your case. Regarding the girl who drove like a bat out of hell, body cameras aren’t going to fix that scenario. They’re just going to give you the illusion that is going to change. And the drunk idiot, has less to do with a “cop doing what he wants” and just a person being an ass.

    • //your assertion that every rich person or every influential person can just get of scott free makes responding to this pointless. //
      I didn’t. What I claim is that some police let other police break the law without penalty, PBA/FOP card are issued to friends and family of police and are used to avoid tickets or arrest and that many rich people get off because they can afford better lawyers. I have personally witnessed the first two and will propose the last based on such trials as OJ’s.

      • None of which has a thing to do with cameras. So we are now venturing into the straw man fallacy.

        • This is basically what I’m trying to say.

          What’s further is there are two different issues being discussed.

          A. People getting away with breaking crimes.
          B. Police not being held accountable.

          I watched a video (I’d rather not name it online) regarding a former police officer who used to be a hotshot at what he used to police, of which I and many people completely disagree with. He routinely would target people who had stickers of police unions or any of that other crap that people identify themselves as “above the law” (because their spouse, or they work for the law). Eventually he realized his mission was bullshit and quit, but that’s after probably arresting quite a number of people who thought they were “above the law” because some sort of card carrying nonsense.

          Where there is a system, particular a government system, there will be people gaming it.

  16. Hey Jack, fun coincidence… the episode you mentioned on Urban Homesteading just happens to be the first TSP episode I ever listened to. Been 18 months or so since and I’m an MSB member and daily listener. great show, thanks for all the hard work.

  17. @Mike Cornwell
    “Eventually he realized his mission was bull shit and quit”
    You typed out the flaw in your reasoning. Cops arresting these people doesn’t do anything, they still walk away after the inconvenience. (Most of the time without a trial by average American jurors)

  18. Regarding officers wearing cameras, we are getting very close to George Orwell’s “1984”. He understood the desires and drives of government having once been a government official himself… a sort of police officer as I recall. Let me look that up… “the Indian Imperial Police in Burma.” He ended up doing something very foolish in the course of his duties and even though he knew he was a fool as he was doing it, that didn’t stop him from doing it.

    I suggest reading, “Shooting an Elephant.”

    Even though we are responsible for our actions as individuals, in certain social situations (such as a mob or even as part of a squad in uniform) we are half-pushed to do what those around us expect us to do. It is the hardest thing in the world to resist that push.

    Any soldier understands this when his squad (and especially a platoon) is ordered to do something they would never choose to do as individuals. Yet, in a group, they are pushed to do it, partly by the oaths they swore but also because they cannot resist the pressure of the group… their squad-mates… their brothers… even when they think what they are about to do is really, really… uh… ill-conceived. They still do it because they won’t abandon their brothers and they won’t ask their brothers if they are thinking the very same thing.


  19. Re: spent grains… they are wet an should be used quickly, UNLESS you freeze them to thaw for later to feed your chickens. The hens love that stuff!

  20. “In the North they call us Rebels, In the South they call us Yankees, because every other sucker’s born to do the hokey pokey…”

    GREAT SHOW Jack! Thanks man.