Steve Jobs: Hipster but Capitalist

Mr. Jobs, the adopted son of a family in Palo Alto, Calif., was born on Feb. 24, 1955. A college dropout, he established his reputation early on as a tech innovator when at 21 years old, he and friend Steve Wozniak founded Apple Computer Inc. in the Jobs family garage in 1976. Mr. Jobs chose the name, in part, because he was a Beatles fan and admired the group’s Apple records label.

I am glad he at least lived long enough to see The Beatles on iTunes. I thought it was silly that they made such a big deal out of it until I learned that it was a long struggling goal of Steve’s for many years and why.

Steve Jobs was Apple. He left Apple and Apple floundered. He came back in 1997 and made Apple boom. The company now produces $65.2 billion a year in revenue compared with $7.1 billion in its business year ending September 1997.

The prediction was just made on my Facebook that the Occupy Wall Street protest for socialism currently under way will probably include Steve Jobs memorializing since many of the protestors use and love his products. This would be wildly hypocritical.

I will be hugely insulted if those Occupy Wall Street protesters turn their anti-capitalism of rich people protest into a “oh, but not the one we deemed as being okay” addendum. fuck them. Steve Jobs spent his money better than any “Progressive” government has – and that includes his many donations to Progressive causes and candidates.

He made the products that hippies and hipster socialists use and love by the means that they protest: being non-union, utilizing corporate tax breaks and moving large operations overseas because it’s cheaper to manufacture and operate there.
His employees loved the hell out of him and he wasn’t evil and he wasn’t “greedy” just like the majority of the other CEOs and corporation founders who are responsible for the products and services we use and love.

Its because of people like them and non-“progressive” business practice like that that middle class income earners have the option of buying a hand held computer and telephone that can capture, store and send through the air high definition pictures and video all on a higher resolution screen than any television their parents ever owned growing up for $200 + a phone service contract.

It will be wildly hypocritical and insulting if anyone participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests publicly memorializes Steve Jobs. It would be nothing but flaunting their elitist douchebaggery. “we miss and love THIS billionaire whom we all benefitted from – but not the rest of you pigs! now join me, brothers and sisters in our fight to stop the next Steve Jobs from growing his business!”

Occupy Wall Street is a protest to prevent the Steve Jobs’ of the world from benefiting by serving humanity – which is what capitalism is. It’s the only philosophy that says (to quote myself):

Do what you want. do nothing if you want and the government won’t force you into action. but if you want nice things… you can’t just steal them from other people. if you want services from other people you can’t just force or enslave them – you must give them something they want to GET something you want. SO… if you want these wonderful advantages in life and if you want to be able to have the stuff and experiences your heart and mind desire: you can only do it by serving your fellow human being. Only by creating or providing something that someone wants can you amass wealth. Only by taking risks with your capital to make more of it can you become wealthy.

You have a choice. There are no guarantee’s except in your freedom to try.
Except when you DO try, you’ll find how true the wisdom of Yoda was:
Do. or do not. There is no “try”.

UPDATE: Judge Napolitano on Steve Jobs, Free Market Hero

Norwegian politician, Tove Lill Lyote

Tove Lill was one of the finalists in Miss Norway (Not to be confused with the Frøken Norge pageant, sometimes translated to Miss Norway in English) 2007 and won the finale. After that she has travelled around the world as Miss Norway in international beauty competitions such as Miss Tourism Queen International, Miss Peace International, International Union of Beauty pageants, Miss Globe International and Miss Pearl. She had her first modeling job at age 19 for a friend just for fun, doing a music video with a Norwegian rapper band. She realized modeling was what she wanted to do, and she sent the photos to a photographer, and a few weeks later she was on the cover of one of Norway’s biggest magazines.

A famous model scouter saw Tove Lill’s photos, and wanted to bring her to Los Angeles for work. They started a reality show called Glamour of Sweden with 5 other models, where they were competing with Playboy’s Girls Next Door.

In The United States, Hugh Hefner noticed the Norwegian beauty, and after Tove Lill moved back to Norway, he called her and invited her to the Playboy Mansion to do a Playmate shoot. Tove Lill stayed for a while, and Hefner wanted Tove Lill to be his girlfriend.

In addition to be a model, Tove Lill is also a politician. She is the leader of the Norwegian political party Progress Party’s Youth Organization the Youth of the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiets Ungdom in Norwegian) in the county of Vest-Agder.

The Progress party:

The Progress Party’s Youth (Norwegian: Fremskrittspartiets Ungdom, FpU), is the youth wing of the Norwegian political party the Progress Party. It is generally more libertarian than the Progress Party itself, both with regards to economics and politics in general. The current leader of the organization is Ove Vanebo.

In the organization’s manifesto, it states that; “The government should not use economic politics to influence economic development”, in stark contrast to the Progress Party’s economic politics. It also wishes to replace the public safety net with private insurance arrangements and privatize some schools and hospitals, making the public hospitals “compete” with the privately owned hospitals. On social politics, the youth party also has a much more liberal approach. The youth party does not support gay marriage in a common church, thus they do support them in getting married in a humanitarian church, due to religiously-influenced views that state that it is against the bible and what the church is built on.

The overarching political principle of FpU is that of individual freedom, and the right to do as you want, as long as it don’t bother anyone else or break any religious principles. A much used slogan, “my freedom ends where yours starts”, illustrates that in a clear way.

The Government War on Cameras

Wtf is with people getting arrested for recording public servants in public places?

John Stossel summarized the sensible position well:

I believe in the right to privacy.

Yet I can think of someone who deserves very little privacy—a policeman making an arrest. Unfortunately, in some states it’s a crime to make a video of a policeman doing just that. People recording police have been threatened, detained, or arrested. Some were jailed overnight.

That’s wrong. Police work for the public, they’re paid with tax money, and most importantly, they have tremendous power. They’ve got the legal right to pull guns, detain us, lock us up and, in some cases, shoot us. The potential for abuse is great. So it’s a good thing that modern video cameras are now so commonplace. Any abuse of police power in a public place is likely to be recorded. Why should that be a crime in some states?

People can engage in public photography of public Federal buildings. Claiming otherwise is bullshit and that is exactly what happened in New York, resulting in a lawsuit that was settled by the Government issuing a proclamation noting that what the man was arrested for without merit and resulted in the lawsuit, was in no way legally improper.

Recording encounters with law enforcement and other public officials is different. Basically, you can and will be arrested for anything that an enforcement official doesn’t like. If you are willing to get arrested then unless you are violating your states wiretapping laws by recording someone without their consent – you have a good chance of getting your case ruled in your direction and maybe even making some change like the guy in this story did.

In 2009 Elijah Matheney of Pittsburgh was arrested for violating the wiretap law after using his cell phone to record an altercation between his friend and a police officer. Those charges also were dropped, and Matheney sued Allegheny County with help from the Pennsylvania ACLU. The suit was settled in July with a stipulation that the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office inform local police chiefs that recording on-duty police officers is protected under state law. The Pennsylvania ACLU reached a similar settlement with the township of Spring City in 2008 after a man there was repeatedly arrested for recording police.

If the vagueness and inconsistent application of these statutes weren’t bad enough, there is also a clear double standard when it comes to the consequences of misunderstanding what the law requires. Citizens who do not know about wiretapping laws face arrest, felony charges, and jail time. Police and prosecutors who wrongly threaten, detain, arrest, and charge people based on a misinterpretation of these laws are rarely disciplined, much less subjected to civil liability or criminal charges. Police are protected by qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to win damages for an unlawful arrest. Prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, which makes it nearly impossible.

Reason Magazine covered this war on cameras:

Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that’s not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.

In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.

Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.

Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm’s way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer’s rights in so-called public spaces?

These questions will remain unanswered until a case reaches the Supreme Court, says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, founder of the popular law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Until then, it’s up to people to know their rights and test the limits of free speech, even at the risk of harassment and arrest.

Who will watch the watchers? All of us, it turns out, but only if we’re willing to fight for our rights.