It's time for some daylight between Libertarians and the Gay Rights movement

Why are libertarians trying to force their will on other people when it comes to gay marriage?

It's not intentional (at least, I don't THINK it is), but the problem is this fight has become about forcing people to say the M-word.

Take prop 8 as a prominent example, It was one line of legislation. Yes, one. It read, in its entirety;

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Nothing about nullifying civil unions, blocking adoptions, or rounding up gays into internment camps. Just the M word.

"But wait!" I've heard many times, "A civil union isn't the same as a marriage!" Actually, it is. In the state of California, civil unions have the same protections and privileges as a marriage.

Prop 8 was literally only about the M-word.

And in that paltry petition, it failed. It lost because the supposedly liberal people of California didn't want it.

Sorry, it wasn't because ZOMG TEH MORMENZ, or because the Pope pooped in the woods. It was because the people of California, when asked, said "No."

Now we get to libertarian crazy town.

Because at this point, libertarians started arguing that the government should overrule the people's decision and force them to use the M-word in describing the union of two people of the same sex.

"Don't be ridiculous!" Larry "The Big L" Libertarian says, "You act as if gangs of gays are beating up religious people until they say the m-word! No one is being put upon by this legislation!"

If that's the case then why do they keep voting it down? Over and over and over again, in state after state after state?

"Because they're bigots and hate gays!"

Supposing you're right, do libertarians advocate forcing people to agree with us? Do Libertarians demand uniformity of thought? Or is that only for beliefs that you believe are dumb?

Technically the real issue here is that the vote keeps going to the people, and the people have spoken, just not the way libertarians apparently wanted. So libertarians are arguing that people should change to suit the will of others.

Does that seem libertarian to you?

"People's religious beliefs don't trump personal freedom. Majority opinion should be overruled when it comes to personal rights."

I'm glad you brought up rights, Strawman o' mine, because the people who voted "no" were freely exercising their religious beliefs. That's actually inside the 1st amendment. Which amendment is the right to have the fedgov anoint your marriage?

"But the majority shouldn't impose its will on a minority, no matter the reason. America is a republic to defend the rights of minority. The state should overrule them!"

From a perspective of federalism, yes, the state should be able to do whatever it likes, and actually, it can.

California could try to pass it legislatively, but they go to the people because they know gay marriage is unpopular, and they like getting reelected.

"Then the supreme court should tell the states and the people what to do!"

This is where the libertarian support of gay marriage seems to go full retard.

Since when do Libertarians run to the supreme court, and ask them to force a state whose people agreed on a course of action, to overrule the state and its people?

While we're talking about the supreme court, I'd like to remind us all that nine people in robes didn't give us our right to keep and bear arms, so they can't take it away.

I celebrated the Heller decision like everyone else, but only because it extended Claire Wolfe's awkward phase. It was not a magic bullet, nor was it validation. If I elect myself ruler of your life, and magnanimously deign that you may go about your business, would you feel relief at my benevolence? Or would you just chuckle?

"Alright, fine, lets be honest... We all know this is more about getting the government out of marriage than it is about gay marriage."

This is the crux of my concern. Two groups joined up to fight for the same ground with different destinations in mind. Once that ground is gained, libertarians will lose.

The fight has become over the top and, dare I say, flamboyant. A win on this ground is a loss for libertarians who hitched their wagon to this fight and are destined to suffer from its failure.

Yes, failure. This is not a popular fight. Gay marriage has been deeply unpopular even in deeply liberal states. Many failed pieces of legislation have proven that.

Libertarians shouldn't be running to the supreme court for justice. We should be appealing to the people with common-sense and rational arguments.

So raise your hand if you think there's been an abundance of common sense and rationality in this debate.

Bueller? ... Bueller? ... Bueller?

"The ends justify the means. Getting the fedgov out of marriage would be a huge win, no matter how we get there!"

Ok, lets imagine victory. Say the fedgov threw up its hands and said, "FINE! GO BE GAY IF YOU WANT! I DON'T EVEN CARE ANYMORE!" and got itself out of the marriage business. Say it deferred to the states, accepting any state marriage certificate as a union with the same protections.

Do you think this fight would be over?

Of course not! There'd be gay riots in the streets! How DARE the fedgov not FORCE every state to allow gay marriage! It's about rights! Except... which right would being infringed upon at this point? The right to force other people to say a word? The right to force people to vote against their religious beliefs? Then, when libertarians celebrated it as a victory, gay activists would turn on them for not sharing their goal.

Libertarians need to acknowledge that we don't share the same goal with the gay rights movement.

There is no victory here.

Either gay marriage wins, and libertarians become a group that opposes religion and forces their will on others, or gay marriage loses, and libertarians lose the momentum they've built getting the feds out of our marriages.

"So what do we do then? Give up the partnership? Lose all we've gained?"

Not really. I think we just need a slight course deviation. Not a 180, just, like, five degrees off to one side. We're going in the same direction, but we don't have the same destination (or convoy!)

So when a gay rights advocate fights for legislation to force all 50 states to acknowledge gay marriage, just say,

"Getting the government out of the marriage business is the root of this issue, and where we should be focusing. Because it would empower the individual residents of each state to chart the course of the state, and win the freedom they seek without nine unelected people in robes thousands of miles away telling them what to do."

"You just hate gay marriage."

Actually no, I think gays should be allowed to marry. I don't think the fedgov can provide a service to one taxpayer and deny it to another. However, if it weren't in the fedgov's hands, I'd defer to the states.

"How can you 'defer to the states' when widows of gay service members are being denied benefits!"

Yeah, I keep hearing that, and I think it's wrong and distressing (again, a service to one taxpayer, but not another), but I don't think it's happening enough to warrant all this pressure on the issue. Which begs the question--

What is this fight actually about?

Love is a personal experience, and I never understood what impact a piece of paper stamped or signed by another person could possibly have on it.

There are many gay men in committed, loving relationships right now, living happily, regardless of their union status as applied by the federal government (or lack thereof!).

Look at it from a gun rights perspective. The supreme court doesn't protect my rights. I do. With my rifle, my skill, and my willingness to use it. My freedoms are extremely personal.

If Obama stacked the court with liberals and they all but nullified the second amendment, that wouldn't mean the inalienable rights endowed to me by my creator ceased to exist.

So why would a bureaucrat stamping a form have some effect on your deep, abiding love and personal commitment to your soul mate?

It doesn't make sense, and I ask again; what is this fight REALLY about?

Personally? The only thing that makes sense to me, is that it's about wanting to be normal.

If the feds made a new classification of marriage called "Super Marriage," and only allowed to a select group of couples to apply for that status, I think there'd be plenty of excluded couples clambering just as desperately for the privilege.

But I think the only couples who thought they needed a Super Marriage would be the ones that were in trouble already.

The union of two people who love each other doesn't magically improve when you call it a marriage, or a "civil union with all the protections of a marriage," or a Super Marriage, or a jelly donut.  It is what it is.

And it isn't what it isn't.

If you're not happy with your Honda Civic, forcing all your friends to call it a Lamborghini isn't going to help.

The Bard said, "The lady doth protest too much" and methinks the flamboyant and viciously vocal section of the gay rights movement is getting in our faces so it doesn't have to look in the mirror.

Innocents Betrayed

What single type of entity murdered 170,000,000 innocent people in the 20th century?

Government.

Different governments of all kinds murdered a total of 170 million innocent people in the 20th century.

There was one thing that happened before each and every instance of government-sponsored genocide.


The disarmament of private citizens.


The video is about an hour long, and was produced by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. It covers almost every instance of state-sponsored genocide in the 20th century.

It is a horrifying video, but it must be watched.

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES OF GENOCIDE

Source material for the numbers

No one can predict the future of this nation, but what we can do is remember never to give up our only effective means of personal defense.

Many of these genocides didn't happen in 6 months, or 6 years. Some took decades to lead up to the resolution of the plan. Building popular anger for years before beginning the first intentional step toward their ultimate goal of genocide. So don't give up your arms for anyone at any time.
Because it usually happens that right after the time when you need them least, you will need them most.

Also remember that many of these horrifying acts took place with popular support, or out of the public eye. This means if you are one of those targeted, you can expect to either have everyone around you against you, or you can expect to have everyone around you not believe you.

You will be alone. But alone is better than in a crowd on a train car being carted somewhere.

One cannot be paranoid about everything. There just isn't enough time in the day. So try to only worry about the worst case scenarios.

Being a Jew in late 1930s Germany is one of the worst.

Never allow yourself or your family to be in that position.
Never allow someone to tell you it could never happen.
Never allow yourself to be convinced to give up your personal arms, even if tyranny seems impossible.


Never--
Never--
NEVER give up your future ability to fight.

There is one situation, though, where I tell a woman to fight to the death. That's when the man pulls out a pair of handcuffs and says, 'Come on, I promise I won't hurt you, this is just so you won't flail around and hurt either of us by accident. Come on, I just want to talk, get in the van and let me handcuff you to this eyebolt here, and I promise I won't touch you' ... But if she gets in the van and puts her wrists in the handcuffs, she has just given up her future ability to fight, and now it is too late.
~John Ross author of Unintended Consequences

"Who could predict?" Is a question that you ask when it's too late.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
~George Washington

Man on sex offender list for animated character "child" porn?

The Simpsons porn lands man on sex offender list

Ok... So, pictures of a nude child is child porn.
I get that.

But drawings characterizing nude children is child porn?
Maybe. There's no victim, but it's still bad mojo.

Cartoon caricatured nude fictional children is child porn?
No.


As an act of defiance, I will now post what must be considered child porn in Australia.


It is very graphic, you have been warned...






Last chance to stop!






There it is. To keep from going to jail, I recommend you erase your internet history, delete your cookies, and fire your computer into space on a rocket ship.

Constitutionality of permanent imprisonment after prison time served up to supreme court

Read that post title again.

The highest court in the land, the supreme court... is going to hear a case... about whether or not it is constitutional... to permanently imprison criminals... after they have served their prison time.

Is that processing?

Now, what on Earth could possibly possess people to believe it could be a good idea to give the government the power to hold people indefinitely, after they have served their time?

Oh shit...

US News: Supreme Court to Hear Sex Offender Imprisonment Case

I didn't realize we were talking about SEX OFFENDERS! Well, shit, in that case, lets broaden the government's powers to identify sex offenders by putting cameras in everyone's home, and give investigators the power to enter homes without a warrant, copy computer contents for review! Hell, while we're at it, lets get cameras mounted to everyone's heads so we can tell if people are looking at children for too long! Fathers that spend hours looking at their kids? OBVIOUSLY SOON-TO-BE RAPISTS! LOCK THEM ALL UP! And teachers? They look at hundreds of children every day for hours at a time! HOW CAN WE LET THIS STAND?! Doctors claim to be doing "medical exams" on children, but WE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE THINKING! LOCK THEM ALL UP!

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!


That's right, even capital "L" libertarians will go "full retard" when the subject of sex offenders comes up. So let me make this clear...


If you want to imprison sex offenders for life, you CHANGE THE GODDAMN LAW.

You do NOT grant a series of bureaucrats a new power to imprison people who- by their own definition- are rehabilitated!


I understand that the system we have right now doesn't work. When people who simply possess a standard capacity ammunition magazine go to jail longer than child molesters, you know the system is broken.

The solution is not to add new powers to do something that we have the power to change.

When the blade on your lawnmower is dull, you don't attach a kitchen knife to a motor, hang it in front of your broken mower, and push it around your yard.

Because that would be obtuse, stupid, and dangerous.

Because that's exactly what this law is.

So sharpen the blade. Fix the sentencing limits. If you think child molesters should get life in prison (and, I do) then change the law so those convicted can get life without possibility of parole.


This is unbelievable.


The Golem will turn.

Good news everyone!

The War on Drugs was been going so well, that the price of Cocaine is going down!

That's what happens when something is hard to find, right? The price goes down?

Oh wait...

Well, maybe it's because people aren't doing cocaine anymore. Yeah, that's probably it.

At least I didn't have to deliver this news with the death of another innocent bystander in the war on drugs! So, it could have been worse.

Instead of another dead innocent, we're only throwing billions down a bottomless pit, with nothing to show for it but small fries living off more taxpayer money, and an availability of illegal drugs that has never so much as stopped to catch its breath!

Whew!

That was a close one.

Obama, Legalization, The Economy, Change, Violence in Mexico, and Economics.

At a town-hall style meeting, Obama answered questions voted upon via internet.

But after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy by allowing the government to regulate and tax the drug.

Note, please, that the question was not; "Dude, like, dude, you should totally make bud legal, bro!" This was a legitimate question, made even more legitimate by California's consideration of doing the very same thing.

Obama's answer came as a surprise to me.

"I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama said in the session in the East Room, drawing a laugh from his live audience, which included teachers, nurses and small-business people. "The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow the economy."

Of all the presidents in recent memory, I would expect Obama to be the one not to crack a joke at this question. Especially considering he was for legalization, before he was against it.

The debate tape from Jan. 21, 2004, at Northwestern University shows Obama proclaiming the war on drugs an "utter failure."

"We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,". he said to scattered applause. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana. What I do believe is that we need to rethink how we're operating in the drug war. Currently, we're not doing a good job."

This must be part of the change he was promising. I'm not sure what he means by saying we should "decriminalize our marijuana laws," even though he says he's "not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana." I'll just say he Kerry'd that line, and move on.

So Obama says, "I don't think that is a good strategy to grow the economy." Lets play for a moment in the fantasy world that the income from taxation of legal Marijuana, would be nonexistent. Lets assume marijuana sales bring in no additional income. What income does legalization free up?

How many people are incarcerated for minor drug offenses, and sucking money from state and federal coffers every day? How many man hours, and overtime hours are spent pursuing these same offenders? How much money is spent on investigations to stop large shipments of marijuana? How much federal money is paid out to families of accidental victims of the drug war? How much money is spent in court costs trying those same cases? How much money does the coast guard spend seeking, and destroying smugglers' boats? How much money can be saved by cutting the overhead and processing of almost every police agency in the country?

How much money (and lives) is that President Obama? How much money will that free up, which can be spent on economic problems elsewhere?

California estimates it can charge $50 per ounce of marijuana, and almost guarantee sales, because those prices still beat the black market. Do you have any idea what percentage tax $50 is on an ounce of a plant that grows in the dirt? It's practically criminal. But people will pay it. You will instantly have income from a billion (trillion?) dollar market, already in full swing.

There's also the added effect of striking a heavy blow against the drug cartels south of the boarder. Want them to stop fighting over territory? Take their buyers away. Stop a large chunk of their income. Give them less to fight over. I keep hearing you talk about the violence in Mexico, well now you have the chance to do something about it.

Hillary Clinton was wrong when she visited Mexico, and said America had an "insatiable" appetite for illegal drugs.

America has an insatiable appetite for drugs that have been declared illegal.

Politicians declared these substances illegal.
Politicians created the black market for these items.
Politicians are responsible, not the nature of humans to seek what they want.

All the force in the world will not eliminate market pressure.

The DEA commands billions of dollars, top-of-the-line guns, and even tanks. TANKS. Let that sink in! They're still being beaten. Soundly.

What does the DEA have to show for itself in THIRTY SIX YEARS in operation? Except a bottomless pit in which we dump money, people incarcerated and living off tax dollars, the blood of innocents caught in the crossfire, and an availability of illegal drugs that has never so much as stopped to catch its breath?

As long as someone wants something, and someone's willing to sell it to them for a reasonable price, that transaction will always take place.

You can either profit from that transaction, or waste money trying to stop it.

How's the latter been working out for us so far? I seem to recall a certain Senator calling it an "utter failure."

So what has changed since then, Mr. President?

Politics or reality?

Quote of the Rapists

Child rapists are so hated that few people can bring themselves to say a word in their 'defense'. That's what the State relies upon -- a general willingness to strip certain people of all rights under the law simply becuase they are that thoroughly detested. Through its treatment of sex offenders, the state establishes many precedents in law that can be used against other categories of people, especially in perilous time when oh-so many categories constitute a public threat.
~ Wendy McElroy

I've written about this before.

Don't allow yourself to become blinded by hate. It's exactly what they'll use to get their way.

From Say Uncle and Two Four

Ignore those extremist "patriot" right wingers

...no matter how many times they're right.

Hey, those tin-foil hatters are still talking! Providing "facts", "videos", and "scans of FOIA released documents", lets ignore and marginalize them again. Those silly nut-jobs. Always with their conspiracies, and such...

Don't ignore Kommiefornia. It won't just go away.

Gunnies have disdain for California (or Kommiefornia), and unfortunately, disdain for gunnies who live IN California. Many gunnies evacuate California for greener pastures, and join the non-Californian gunnies who wish aloud that California simply break off and sink into the ocean. In fact, the NRA has expressed disinterest in fighting some gun laws in California, simply because they don't think they'll win. This is hazardous.

As I've stated previously California is more than a place where crazy laws are passed, it's also a test bed for laws. Recently, microstamping passed Arnold "What's my party again?" Schwarzenegger's desk with his seal of approval. I warned that failure to fight these laws will result in them spreading to other states, and then being optioned as federal law. That is happening now.

So, gunnies; do as you please, but know that you ignore "Kommiefornia" at your own peril.

Interesting Post by Mike Vanderboegh

Mike Vanderboegh is known for his inflammatory style and choice of topics.

This essay is about the awkward stage. If you don't already know what I'm talking about, move along. Nothing to see here.

they went straight from the "awkward stage" to the concentration camps without ever firing a shot.

To its victims, the Tories, the [American] Revolution was truly incomprehensible. Never in history, said Daniel Leonard, had there been so much rebellion with so 'little real cause.'...

Compromise for everyone but RP

Many say they love RP and everything he stands for, BUT they won't vote for him because of his stance on the war.

However, in the next breath they'll talk about how they are accepting the lesser of two evils in an alternate candidate, becuase they know that politics is a game of compromise.

They feel that the war on terror is too much of a negative to ignore.

I happen to feel the deviation from the ideals of the framers of this nation is doing more damage to America than Osama Bin Laden could ever do.




I don't understand how some people don't notice.

Music radio had a good run.

I don't exactly have popular tastes.

This makes listening to music on the radio an exercise in frustration. What's that? You say you're playing that new pop song by that new pop artist? Great! It's kinda catchy! What's that? You're playing it again? What's that? You're going to stop just short of playing it back to back?! Hey, thanks for that. After all, if people didn't want to listen to the same song over and over again, they'd probably just change the station to one of the other 10 music stations owned by the same company, playing the exact same bullshit songs over and over. People usually listen to the radio in short blocks, around two hours, if you listen beyond those blocks, you realize that they're playing the same songs they just played. Try it, and keep long slender objects out of reach so you don't try to jam them into your ears after hearing that new hit single for the 11th time today.

Even when the music is tolerable, "deejays" can't help but interrupt over and over to remind you that they are, in fact, playing music. Or they take advantage of the rule that you don't talk over vocals, and when a song is starting out and building to the vocals, they feel free to yammer about nothing in particular over the first 45 seconds of a song. What really pisses me off, is when they're not trying to squeeze in announcements or information, they're just relating a story associated with the song. Ah, so when you first heard this song you liked it a lot? Please tell me more, Mr. Deejay. Additionally, instead of just holding down the button and telling us the story all at once, tell us the story in 4 second bursts so the music fades in and out annoyingly over and over. By the way, Mr. Deejay, after you've finished your story, feel free to continue to speak though you've nothing to say! Bonus points if you can continue saying things like "Yeah...", "Sooo..." and "Yep..." until just before the vocals start and quickly say the name of the show and the station and release the button with the satisfaction of knowing that you are a complete tool douchebag. (a tool would just say the station name; you bore us, and interrupt our music before saying the station name.)

Stations available run the gamut of music; oldies, rock/alt, country, rap/r&b, jazz/easy listening and... Oh, wait. That's it. Being a fan of electronic music I'm forced to suffer through Green Day's Time of your life, which is the 200th time in my life I've heard the damn song, before they actually consider playing a song I might actually enjoy. But every few years a station will pop on the dial that actually plays electronic/dance music, and for 6 months, life is good. No, life is awesome. Having great music to listen to when driving here and there or reading at home really makes a difference in my mood. Which makes it all the more wrenching when 6 months from the station's founding, I'm listening to my favorite music at 11:59pm, and at 12:00am I'm suddenly listening to mariachi music. Fuck you guys. How many truckloads of money did Clear Channel back up to your station to buy you out and eliminate you as competition? It isn't as though people didn't like the station because when the station shuts down and you flip to one of the "popular" stations that wouldn't play electronica if you chained it to a burning car as it rolled slowly toward a cliff siding a canyon filled with jagged rocks, broken glass, and salt; and surprise surprise, they're playing music straight from a playlist they snatched from the warm, dead hands of the dearly departed station. As if to say, "Hey, we hate what happened to that poor station too, but we've got what you need! I'd like to say this goes on for a week before they return to the same bullshit music, but it's usually about three days. Why mix up their "winning" line up of new pop song, old pop song, and popular 90's rock song, unless they thought there were ears to be bent? In my short life, I've seen this happen THREE times. After the last time I stopped listening to music on the radio.

Fortunately, I'm usually able to find independent stations that play interesting music. I'm not talking about the "Super Indy, Independent music radio that is totally not owned by some huge corporation so don't even bother looking at who funds us... please"-station, I'm talking about college radio stations. These are great for some interesting music, but you don't get any guarantee that you'll hear what you want. Fortunately, these stations usually have an electronic or semi-electronic night show.

After my most recent loss (which was surprising because the station had been around for a long time), I found a station that fulfilled my specific trance/dance/lounge/jazz taste. Another college station that could barely reach my area. After trying to catch a station name through the static that interrupted the music every 5-8 seconds, I found the station online, and it has an internet radio station. My DecTOP is going to get plugged into the sound system so I can stream constantly and just turn it on whenever I want to listen at home. Awesome. The station is KSBR, and is currently playing some easy listening... I'm guessing that awesome starts in the evening (PST), right now it's generic smooth jazz. Check it out later.

With my mounting frustration with radio, I'm finding the idea of paying for radio to be more and more attractive. I'd get the kind of music I want whenever I want, with (likely) minimal intrusion from "zany" deejays trying to make themselves memorable in some way so they don't get replaced when people realize they're just monkeys that push buttons.

(cough)qft(cough)

"What's wrong with Apples?"

"They're just not real computers," the PFY says. "They're the piano accordion of the computing world, entertaining, but not made for professionals."

"Our Graphics people..."

"Yeah, but they're not professionals. They'd be just as happy with crayons and finger paints!"

The BOFH never ceases to entertain...

Unpopular people have no rights.

I said before that we should judge our justice system by how it treats our most hated individuals, and I stand by that comment.

Judge issues order against self-proclaimed pedophile

Why is he a "self-proclaimed pedophile" and not just a pedophile? Because he has done nothing wrong. He has expressed that he exhibits deviant behavior, but no law has been broken. Opponents are quick to add "THAT WE KNOW OF!" to the end of that last statement, and I'd like to note that those same opponents have not kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and chopped up any hookers THAT WE KNOW OF!

So what orders were issued against this guy for being unpopular and professing to enjoy deviant behavior?

• McClellan is not allowed within 10 yards of a minor child under the order.
  
• He may not harass, threaten, follow or loiter around any minor child.
  
• He also may not photograph, videotape or post on the Internet images of a minor child without parental consent.

Do you even know when you're within 30 feet of a minor? I wonder where he lives and whether or not people may pass by his place of residence with their children? Even within 30 feet of where he sleeps? How do you suppose he'll drive next to other cars possibly full of minors? How will he eat in a restaurant? Will he be "following" a minor if he's walking down the street while a minor 200 yards away walks in the same direction? I can almost hear supporters of this order saying; "It's not my problem how he eats or drives to work or where he lives!" That's probably why some of these insane requirements for "the most evil of the evil" have convicted sex offenders ordered to live under bridges. But hey; it's not their problem. I wonder if some of these supporters have some quality that can be vilified... Probably not. They probably are exactly like everyone else, and do nothing that could possibly offend anyone. At least, not those in the majority... currently... History teaches us nothing. (though not for lack of trying) Let me remind you; these requirements are to be imposed on someone who has committed no crime. How long until we start imposing these "safety" restrictions on people who are suspected of being pedophiles? I've posted about the slippery slope before;

You can be forced to live your life as a second class citizen. You can be rejected from living in certain neighborhoods. You can be refused free, private services. You can be tagged like an animal and have your location tracked for life. You can be investigated and raided based on things you put on the internet. You can be investigated and raided based on a picture of you in the newspaper. You can be labeled a terrorist by defending the US constitution. You can be put on a watch list that will allow your 4th amendment rights to be suspended. You can be put on a terrorist watch list on accident. You can be wiretapped without a warrant. You can be jailed out-of-country where rights may be suspended. You can be jailed without due process or ability to defend yourself, do not pass go, do not collect $200. This is not tin-foil hat time. This is now.

I guess now, I can add; You can be forced to live under a bridge. You can be effectively kicked out of a state without being convicted of anything. For this recurring topic I've decided to add a new tag to help people navigate quickly to stories like these. The tag describes this topic at it's very core and is not something people often realize can be attributed to a story of the popular oppression of the unpopular. The tag is hate.

Good fucking luck to all of us. We're going to need it.

At the bottom of the slippery slope.

[tinfoil hat on] No wait, this is already happening.

Myspace gives up "sex offender data".

With the filing of the required subpoenas, MySpace has agreed to supply the names, email addresses and IP addresses of all convicted sex offenders who have set up a profile on the site. While MySpace has deleted all accounts established by people confirmed to have been convicted of such crimes, it has retained all the vital information so it can comply with the subpoenas.

Win/win right? No one likes child molesters, and they shouldn't be allowed on myspace because there are *cough*unsupervised*cough* children on myspace! It only makes sense, and it's for the children!(tm)

I wrote a post a bit ago, Protect the child molesters! because I wanted people to be aware that we should judge our justice system by how it treats our most hated individuals. When we can convict someone of a crime, send them to jail, release them after having served that time, then take steps to make it nearly impossible for that person to get a job or live anywhere while forcing them into second-class (third? forth?) citizenship, and tracking their every move for life, we REALLY need to take a step back and seriously consider the gravity of what we're doing here.

But wait...

While a step in the right direction, Monday's accord only goes so far. The information won't concern sex offenders who aren't registered or are using aliases on the site. Only honest offenders are likely to get caught in the net, it would seem. Offenders who have fibbed while registering their profile can easily slip by, at least for now.

If you're a convicted sex offender, who must register every month or whatever, with your name in every database imaginable, and you plan to lure children to you through myspace, you're probably not going to use your real name. So this action won't even do what it's supposed to do... Except set prescident.

I'm not even going to get into the idea of government stopping you from using a free privately owned service because you might use it in the comission of a crime. What's next? Banning sex offenders from parks, malls, libraries? Where does the list end?

But hey, myspace is just a place for people to hang out and be idiots right? It's not like anyone's getting arrested for things they've posted on myspace.

Matthew Corwin.
Here's a quick news video on what's happened to him.

The student body president at East Los Angeles College, was arrested after students and faculty members contacted authorities in response to his MySpace page showing Corwin in fatigues and holding weapons.

In fatigues??? He's a military vetern, and part-time MP in the US Army Reserve. I'd say the fatigues could be expected.
Holding weapons??? He founded Students for the Second Amendment, a gun enthusiast and advocacy club on campus. Hmmm... One might assume that someone who founded such a club owned... guns?

It's not like he's being railroaded! If he makes bail, he'll be allowed to continue with his life right? Nope. He's been barred from coming within 100 yards of his school, and has been assigned an inordinately high bail.

So they raided him, and charged him with five counts of unlawful assault-weapon sales, four counts of unlawful possession of assault weapons, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon and one count of receiving stolen property. Clearly there was some other evidence than just some pictures on myspace... (right?) Surely, pictures aren't enough for the ATF to set up and execute a raid against someone right? Wrong.

If they raided him, he must have been doing something wrong. Surely there wasn't a rush-to-judgement... Whoops.

"After further investigation by the (federal officials) they determined that the Browning machine .30-caliber was lawful. So we dismissed six counts today. The remaining six counts will be prosecuted," district attorney's office spokeswoman Jane Robison said.

So they dropped 50% of the charges they were going to persue.

So where is this leading? The big T word.

While sex offenders are (somehow) more villified than terrorists, we know who the sex offenders are. They've been tried, convicted, served their time, and live as second (or third) class citizens after being "rehabilitated" in the criminal justice system. Terrorists, however, are anyone and everyone. Which means that we must give the government unchecked powers to weed out the terrorists hiding in our closets and under our beds. Suddenly there exists a "terrorist watch list" which is held in the strictest secrecy by an agency that was just recently created who will speak nothing to how names get on the list or how to get them off the list.

But only terrorists will turn up on a terrorist watch list right? Wrong. Ted Kennedy was perturbed to find himself on the terrorist watch list, and used his connections to get his name removed from the list. After several weeks. If it took someone with as much political clout as Ted Kennedy several weeks to remove his name from this secret list, do you even think it'll be possible for you or me to do so? Do you think they even had a process for doing such a thing? I doubt it.

Barring any mistaken identity or general cock-up, you've got to be planning to blow something up to be labled a terrorist, right? Wrong. According to the Phoenix FBI training manual, possible terrorists may be characterized by the following:

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN
Groups of individuals engaging in para-military training
Those who make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution
Those who attempt to police the police
Lone individuals
Rebels

Looks like this was worth of the attention of the NRA, who says here;

Do you believe gun control is a way to remove our ability to protect ourselves? Do you believe the Bill of Rights protects God-given rights, as opposed to granting rights from the government? Do you believe U.S. sovereignty is threatened by the actions and actors at the United Nations?

Congratulations. You might be a domestic terrorist.

Whoops. You've just been wiretapped, had your electronic communications and credit card purchases flagged, and are subject to an overzealous search when attempting to board a plane. Not to mention any other bit of nastyness we the people aren't even aware of.

Can you imagine being on this list if you were someone the government didn't like? Say, an opponent of a particular party, group, or agency?

But it's not like you're going to just get shipped off without any explanation.
Whoops. Bush has suspended writ of habeus corpus.



So what am I trying to say here?

I'm not trying to say anything. It's already been said, and done.

You can be forced to live your life as a second class citizen.
You can be rejected from living in certain neighborhoods.
You can be refused free, private services.
You can be tagged like an animal and have your location tracked for life.
You can be investigated and raided based on things you put on the internet.
You can be investigated and raided based on a picture of you in the newspaper.
You can be labeled a terrorist by defending the US constitution.
You can be put on a watch list that will allow your 4th amendment rights to be suspended.
You can be put on a terrorist watch list on accident.
You can be wiretapped without a warrant.
You can be jailed out-of-country where rights may be suspended.
You can be jailed without due process or ability to defend yourself, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

This is not tin-foil hat time. This is now.

Good fucking luck to all of us. We're going to need it.

UPDATE:
Follow up post on this topic;
Unpopular people have no rights.

Choose the impliment of your destruction

So, you'd like to argue with me about guns. Fair enough. Though I ask that you not take offense to my assumption that you are quite *ahem* outgunned. I hope, however, that you will accept my offer of selecting the argument you wish me to use to unhinge yours, that you may choose ground with which you are familiar. This way, you will harbor no ill-will when you are trounced.

Sir, choose my weapon!

Constitutional wording
Somehow references to "the people" in the first amendment refer to the people. But references to "the people" in the second refer to the states? Yeah. No. And you might want to look up older definitions of the word "regulated." Seems it can also mean armed and ready, or properly managed. The constitution was meant to be read, not interpreted. Hand the amendment to a 5 year old and ask him what it means.

Constitutional intent
Those who penned the 2nd amendment did not just toss it in there for the hell of it. Many of our founding framers spoke very specifically to the necessity and reason behind the second amendment, some felt it to be the most important amendment. They had just finished fighting an oppressive government with guns they refused to give up when the British came to confiscate them. They knew that the evolution of any government ends in oppression, and knew that guns in the hands of citizens would be a constant reminder that oppression would be met with force.

Anachronisms
So, you think the 2nd amendment only refers to mussel loaders which only allow a few shots a minute? We find the intent of the 2nd amendment to allow the people to remain as armed as their government. When the military picks up muskets, the people will too.

Militia
How exactly does the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917. If the militia is manned by citizens, and a tool of the state, why do they operate on federal land with federally owned weapons, vehicles, and buildings and punish trespassers under federal law? There must be a separation of powers that simply doesn't exist in the national guard.

Crime
Ever wonder why gun control advocates point to "gun crime" specifically to show the success of their legislation? Because regular crime goes up when gun control goes up. It's a dirty little secret that is well kept. Even the slightest effort in research brings up countless instances of increased availability of guns decreasing crime.

Police
The police are not legally required to protect you or come when you call. The only time you'll get an immediate response is when you are in immediate danger, and then you still have to wait for their 5-10 minute "quick" response time. You wouldn't want to spend 30 seconds in the same room as a violent intruder with a knife, why would you choose to spend 5-10 minutes? A gun in the hand is worth 100 armed, trained police officers three blocks away. As for the police controlling some hidden mastery of guns, countless (and I do mean countless) instances prove the fallibility of the police. They are not perfect, and are not the perfect solution.

History
In the world there are countless instances of disarmed populations being oppressed, subjugated, and genocided. We even find flickers of armed resistances causing serious trouble to better armed and better trained oppressors. I have no shortages of arguments here, and always wrap up with the old favorite: "Those who don't learn from history..."

Ease of use
Guns make it easy to kill which is good if you're an underpowered or outnumbered woman on a dark street at night. Should the old and frail not be allowed to protect themselves when they are clearly vulnerable to attacks? Guns equalize. They have the power to equalize a regular citizen with a hardened criminal. I don't suppose you'd be against putting a 90 pound woman on equal footing with a 200 pound rapist?

Sporting Purposes
Strangely the constitution speaks nothing of the recreational shooting of living creatures. Must you make sport of shooting attackers if your life is threatened, or refuse to use the gun in an "unsporting" fashion?

And finally, my least favorite, though likely most effective argument;
Fear
There are about 1.5 million active and reserve duty members of the armed forces (I rounded up). There are 85 million gun owners in America, with 250 million guns. If a conservative estimate of JUST 1% of gun owners are the "cold dead hands" types, they will outnumber the military over 5 to 1. That's before considering that not all members of the military are combat trained, and that only a small percentage of those are suited for urban fighting. One more thing; those "cold dead hands" types are very likely more skilled and more prepared than all but the best shooters in the military. Even if they just stand and fight instead of resorting to guerrilla tactics, their kill ratio will NOT be 1:1. They will likely be in the tens, and may approach the hundreds if they take up an insurgency-style guerrilla role. Most of these types will likely be very smart, very skilled, very well-armed, and very willing to do what they know to be their patriotic duty in taking up arms against a tyrannical government, or die trying.

It ain't pretty, and I don't like talking about it because it scares people, but it's the truth.
Confiscation, logistically, can't work.

So... Choose your fighting ground...

Gun Store Jerks

Every month or two someone posts a question to one of the gun boards to the effect of "Why are the employees in gun stores jerks?" Which prompts a flurry of backlash from small gun shop owners rehashing the same stories they told last time this question came up about idiot customers who are much bigger jerks than they are. Then slighted customers respond about how they were mistreated by some gun shop employee some time, which causes more responses and on and on and on.

The basic claim from the gun store "jerks" is; gun store owners/employees have to deal with some REAL idiots, and they have a right to be bitter. Many of their stories include instances where they got to blow up at someone because they were being exceptionally idiotic. I say "got to" because they felt they had put up with enough crap from the customer, and felt justified in snapping at them.

This reasoning is bullshit because of one thing...

Helpdesk.

I worked helpdesk for a while, and had to deal with the bottom of the barrel, bar-none, true idiots. I know plenty of other people who've done the same thing for years. I honestly believe that there are few things in this world more frustrating than spending three hours trying to get some computer illiterate retard to open his e-mail settings. Yes, I have spent hours explaining to someone every little detail involved in accomplishing this task, from how to use a mouse, to what that thing moving around the screen is, to finding the "Start" button, to getting to "Control Panel," to explaining what icons are, to detailing how to change information in a window. Only to hang up, and take another call the exact same way. However, throughout all these infuriatingly idiotic calls, I and every other helpdesker I know, have kept our cool. We may blow up about it afterwards, but we DON'T take it out on the customer. This is primarily because the customer doesn't deserve it. The customer is an idiot. Yelling at an idiot is like yelling at a chair because a spring broke. It's pointless, and the mark of someone without self-control.

I'll make an exception where there was legitimate danger, which can happen when idiots handle firearms, but most of the yelling or put-downs are not the result of dangerous misuse of firearms. It's just people being dumb and ignorant (as they are wont to do), and otherwise rational people losing their cool.

Despite what they will argue, people snapping or blowing up at customers doesn't happen just as much in every industry. It seems focused in the gun shops for reasons owners and employees are not willing to fess up to.

You think you got it hard? Try working helpdesk.

Common sense regulation of the FIRST amendment.

Alright, how's this for a twist you ungrateful 1st-amendment-only supporters. So forgetful of the support you get from 2nd amendment supporters when the time comes to pass more laws restricting gun ownership. Your keyboard chatters as you laugh loudly on your blog, proclaiming one more victory against the "crazed gun nuts"; completely unaware that the amendment you hold so near-and-dear is next on their list.

I'd like to stand up, and be the first to call for "common sense" regulation of our freedom of speech.

In the recent years, and with the advent of the intarweb, it's becoming increasingly apparent that there must be regulation of the freedom of speech. In the wrong hands, the freedom of speech becomes a tool for hate, threats, violence, and deviant behavior such as pedophilia.

Therefore, I'd like to propose the institution of the following "common sense" regulations to put a stop to the misuse of our first, and most precious right. These regulations are penned with the greater good in mind! If it saves just ONE life, it will be worth it.

The following regulations will refer to printed materials, published materials, materials placed on web logs or "blogs", web forums, web sites, chat rooms, and all other forms of digital and physical media availability. Hereafter referred to as "posts."

Carry: Carrying materials in the form of physical media such as pamphlets, posters, or notices, or in digital media such as portable flash memory cards, hard drives, or laptops, must be approved by the Sheriff of the county in which the proposed carrier of this information resides. Permits shall be issues on a "may issue" basis, and may be revoked at the Sheriff's discretion with no explanation required. Pamphlets and posters have been known to incite riots and violence and must be controlled and managed. Digital media can be transferred or copied in seconds to others who may then transfer the information to others, increasing the affected population exponentially. This rapid dissemination of information must be controlled for the safety of our population.

Assault sites: Sites which exceed regulation length, size, breadth of information, or approved content limits will be classified as "Assault Sites." In the past "blogs" have contained a preponderance of information and many varying topics. Limits will control the amount of people who view a post or "blog", and word limits for the amount of information being made available. Limits will also control the offensive appearance of these sites, while these appearances don't affect the content or ability of the site, they serve only to strike fear into readers. There is no reason anyone but professionals should have control over this much information potentially available to our children. If you want an "Assault site", join the reporter corp.

Automatic operation: Various tools allow the reproduction of rapid amounts of information in milliseconds. Tools such as "copy" and "paste", which are likely available on your computer at home and therefore available to our children, allow the high-speed reproduction of information. These tools endow too much power to disseminate copious amounts of information at a "rapid-fire" pace. This kind of speed of publishing has no legitimate civilian use, and should be left to the professionals.

Manufacturing: There are various free and pay publishing tools available on-line. These tools allow the average citizen to publish content. These tools will be controlled and regulated through legislation. Because these tools will be under control, and managed for content based on these rules, people will not be allowed to manufacture or program their own publishing tools. If left unchecked, people could create tools beyond our control, and subvert the common sense regulations imposed on this new media.

Filter bypass ("cop killer") posts: These posts subvert, bypass, and "kill" filters that protect our children from objectionable content. These posts are defined as any post which uses misleading language or implies subject matter or topics it may not directly address. These sites are made to attack our children, and must be stopped. I realize there will be an issue positively determining which sites are attempting to subvert any filters of blocking mechanisms, so there will be some inadvertent violations. These site owners are required to maintain a clear understanding of the laws, and make their content obviously obvious.

Penalty: Any site owners or content providers found in violation of these rules will be brought on felony charges of "Conspiracy to disseminate subversive information." This charge will carry a minimum 3 years and a maximum 30 years in federal prison.

Conclusion: No one loves and appreciates the freedom of speech more than I, which is why I know these laws and regulations are necessary for the preservation of our union. We must think of the children! I know that some will argue that these rules and regulations destroy the freedom of speech, and are open to abuse. To them I say: If you've done nothing wrong; you've nothing to hide.

For those of you unaware, I modeled these idiotic laws after the laws gun owners must already deal with, laws similar to these are already on the books and being enforced. Now that I finish it, I'm a little hesitant to post it. It just seems TOO plausible to me. I'd be more afraid our betters would think my (sad, sad) satire was a great idea, but then I remind myself that as far as they know, the Internet is a series of tubes. (speaking of tubes, net neutrality would make some real strides toward the fictional goals I outlined in this satire. Scary, eh?)


While I'm on the topic, I feel compelled to remind everyone that our rights are not granted by the bill of rights, they are ENUMERATED. It's like saying you have the right to a blue sky. If you revoke the blue sky amendment, the sky will still be blue. The bill of rights doesn't allow us to have our rights, it just reminds everyone that we are endowed by our creator with these inalienable rights.

9/11 redux/republican plot

Small aircraft hits NY, not terrorism: official

Ok, I'm going to beat DailyKos to the punch. This is CLEARLY a Republican plot to divert attention from the scandal surrounding Foley, and force Americans into a "fear cycle" to get them to vote Republican!

Surely this plane was redirected by a Matrix-style hack of flight navigation controls by the CIA to fly the private plane of their enemies into buildings to accomplish three goals at once! Has any one seen Rosie O'Donnel today?

I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin'...

*waits expectantly for DailyKos to post similar article*

Protect the child molesters!

Disclaimer! This is, upon review, a tad alarmist; so take it with a grain of salt. It's really only meant to open avenues of thought.

No, don't protect the child molesters! They're not people! They do bad things so they don't deserve to be treated like the rest of us! Not convicted? He just got a good lawyer! WE KNOW WHAT HE DID!

When using examples of unconstitutional treatment I regularly use child molesters as the victims. This always elicits perplexed looks from the person I'm talking to. Their eyebrows irk into odd shapes and they think loudly enough for me to hear, "Are you actually defending child molesters?!"

Of course not. Child molesters are the lowest of the low, and should die slow, tortuous deaths; but they can't. Because they have rights too. And they should ALWAYS have rights, because once one group of people doesn't have rights, more are sure to follow.

Why choose child molesters? Because EVERYBODY hates child molesters. And since everybody hates them, who cares if the constitutional lines get blurred a bit, right? I care. And you should too. Because it'll be child molesters one day, then drug dealers, then drug abusers, then Jihadists, then gun owners, then religious fanatics, then Christians, then, then, then, then... Until it's too late, and everyone has given enough power to the government to protect them, constitution-be-damned, from these terrible people, that the people won't be able to control the government.

Headlines you'll never read:
"Community outraged at unconstitutional treatment of suspected child molester"
"Protesters rally for fair treatment of KKK members"

Let me be clear, once again. If someone molested a child; they should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. But if they didn't, they should not be. Sadly, this is not always the case (on both accounts). No one likes child molesters, but we have to make sure our hatred of some people doesn't blind us to the fact that they have the same rights that we do.

The harbinger of these grim milestones are raids.

Raids are great. The police bust in, take care of the bad guys, get the goods, and make the world safe for democracy. They look great in the paper, praise the police agency, and can earn high accolades for politicians. Hence, everybody wants to do them whenever they can. Raids are based off some form of information (hopefully!) that leads the police to believe that someone at some residence is committing some crime, and needs to be stopped. Raids use the element of surprise, so they can't be expected to announce themselves, or make otherwise make you aware they wish to forcefully enter your residence. But that's OK right? I mean; everyone gets a hard-on when they get the chance to nail a child molester/cop killer/serial rapist/melon baller/(your occupation here), and when everyone's got their ninja suits on, they can't be bothered with things like paperwork, warrants, or correct addresses!

Heaven forbid an "informant" blurts out your address, or someone plea bargains with your name and address (or just a random one that happens to be yours), or they just plain have the wrong house. Were any of these things to happen, (or a number of other possibilities) you'd find yourself on the receiving end of one of these foaming-at-the-mouth, masturbatory, no-knock, "high-risk" raids. Just hope they don't accidentally kill your unarmed, hand-cuffed, subdued child.

But it's OK right? Just because they beat up that sex offender or rapist or car thief or funny lookin' guy from down the street, doesn't mean that it'll happen to me!

Right?

Lets go for a ride on the slippery slope, shall we?

As peoples' resentment of certain groups of people leads them to tolerate some infringement of rights, the definition of these groups will begin to fuzz, and include more people. The hate will spread to nearby groups, and groups not even closely related (but still perceived as "evil"). As people become more angry at these groups, they'll demand crack-downs, and aggressive pursuit of these "criminals". Which will lead to accidents that will be dismissed by the public, and defended by the prosecutors as necessary evils to rid the community of these terrible groups. Politicians will stir up anger in order to stir up votes, and soon, when nothing will slake the hate of the public, it will be too late. A state of emergency will be declared, and we'll be left with the most extreme of leaders who maintain their power by maintaining the anger, fear, and hate that keeps them in power.

The slope is slippery, and I sure don't like child molesters either, but we have to manage our hate, lest we begin to fear someone hating us.