DebateGate

Via Ami:

The Post in Which I Piss Off EVERYBODY.
Feb 13, 201301:57AM
Category: Politics
Posted by: Michael Z. Williamson

Or, How I Learned To Stop Caring.

By way of introduction, I'd like to explain some of my former positions.  Please do not reply and tell me why I'm wrong.  That's not relevant to this post.  These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.

I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice.  As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion.  I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail.  And I don't believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance.  Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it's a parasite.  This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her.  That's been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.

I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage.  What two people do together doesn't affect me unless I'm one of them.

I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color.  Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.

I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.

I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions.  I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose.  I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.

I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions.  There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.

~~~

I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.  The Supreme Court agrees with me, which means that right is as valid as abortion, sexual privacy, protest and speech.

This should mean that  strict scrutiny applies, meaning the government needs to prove the fabric of society itself is at risk before limiting it.  Just as the Press has the right to broadcast troop movements it can see or acquire, regardless of casualties, I have the right to own weapons, regardless of how someone else may act.  "Someone might get hurt" is an invalid excuse for restriction.

In fact, it's easy enough to prove that freedom of the press HAS caused harm and even death to people, whether it's troop movements, or the address of a person of interest.

The rights of gays to relate as they wish brings the risk of AIDS (60% of all cases are from gay relations, not drugs or medical contamination.)

It's provable that if we required proof of need before awarding a driver's license, we'd have less car accidents.

So, the argument that "guns kill people" is null and irrelevant to the discussion.  Lots of things kill people.  That's not relevant to our civil rights.

Now, over this position, I've had at least 5 death threats (though of course, no "liberal" actually has the balls to attempt so).

I've twice been reported to Family Services on the grounds that I have guns in the house, which means I'm a danger to my kids (which complaints were laughed at, here in Indiana).

I've been accused of racism...because I own guns.

I've been accused of fascism…because I own guns.

I've been called a coward…no "real man" needs a gun to protect himself.  This is a surprise to me as a veteran, who carried guns regularly for the purpose of protecting myself and others, but what do I know?

I've been called a "Fat, Fox News watching, McDonald's munching, inbred, retarded, drooling redneck imbecile."

 I've been told I have a small penis.

I've been told I'm insane to "imagine fighting the government" by people with no military experience who also hate the government, sometimes for the same reasons.

I've had a date tell me I "seem so normal, for a gun nut."

I've been called a "rightwinger."  Indeed.  A gay/female/black/abortion/separation of church and state/free speech supporting rightwinger.

 I've been told this right doesn't exist, that if it exists I can't "pretend" it's more important than wage inequality for women, or gay marriage.

When the Heller Decision was decided in favor of gun ownership, I was told "I hope you all shoot yourselves with guns, because I can't marry the man I love!" by an alleged friend.

There's apparently a "Right to feel safe," and my owning a gun destroys it, because I might shoot someone.  However, if I say a gun makes me feel safe, I'm paranoid and insane.

I've been told I support "baby killers."

I've been threatened with having my Wikipedia page vandalized, by someone who claimed he was more of a man than me.

I've been told I can't be trusted.  How can anyone know I won't go on a shooting spree, because I own an "assault rifle"?

So much for liberal tolerance.

I didn't realize I was so evil and hateful an individual I deserved to be treated in such fashion.

But when I look at the arguments, I think they may be correct:

"At the time the Constitution was written, the weapons in question were muskets."

You know what?  You're right.  And marriage was between one man and one woman.  So what's with gay marriage?  No longer will I offer any moral support, oppose any online statements attacking it, speak out for it.  They have the same right as anyone—to marry someone of the opposite gender.  And given that all gays support raping little boys (just like all gun owners support shooting school kids), I don't think I can support them.  We should do things just the way they were done 220 years ago.  That's the liberal way.

"The Heller Decision was by an activist court.  It doesn't count."

Indeed.  Just like Roe v Wade was an activist decision.  It doesn't count.

"We're not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits.  It's a compromise."

And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc.  It's a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit.  Don't come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won't come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.

And no one is saying you can't ride the bus.  You just have to sit where people think is reasonable.  No one is saying women can't work.  They just have to get paid what is reasonable for the work they do, allowing for the fact they're going to leave the workplace and raise a family.  It's a compromise.

"Assault weapons are an extreme interpretation."

True.  And not allowing any religious emblems on government premises is an extreme interpretation.  As long as they're privately paid for, what's it to you?  No one is saying you can't belong to the Christian church of your choice, just not to extreme groups, like atheists or Muslims.  It would be paranoid to think anyone was trying to infringe on your legitimate right to be free from state religion, just like I'd be paranoid to think they wanted to take my guns.  Quite a few states had official churches well into the 1800s. This is not an infringement on your freedom of religion.

"Given Sandy Hook, you have to make reasonable compromises."

"We just want licensing and safe storage requirements so the wrong people don't get guns."

"Publicizing the information lets people make informed choices about who they live near."

Accepted.  In exchange, gay men should make reasonable compromises over Penn State.  They will simply have to accept being registered and kept a safe distance from children.  This isn't a violation of their rights.  It's just common sense.  The public has a right to know.

This should apply to protests, too.  No reasonable person would object to being identified.  They should welcome it—it means they can't be wrongly maligned.  All union members, blacks, gays and feminists should be signed in with ID before a march or gathering, just so we can track the real criminals to keep the rest safe.

"The country survived without assault weapons for 240 years."

True (well, no, it was 135 years, depending on your definition of "assault weapon"). And it survived without women in combat even longer.  The infantry's trying to scare off women?  Serves them right.  Things were working just fine the way they were.

"This woman is being badly portrayed on the cover of a book."

No, no, that's an accurate portrayal, just like all military contractors are sociopathic mercenaries who torture people, all gun owners are moral cowards with Walter Mitty complexes and all gun dealers exist to make money from gangbangers.  It's silly to suggest one group is singled out for inaccurate portrayals when we know the other portrayals are spot on.

Yup.  I'm taking you at your word.  Want money? Don't care.  Want a petition signed?  Call someone who who gives a shit.  Want a link spread?   Yawn.  Women or gays or blacks or Hispanics don't feel they're being treated nicely?  So what?

 ~~~

First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong.  So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

 ~~~

Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw.  I really don't care anymore.  This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.

AMFs.

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKrHnYexBic#!

The GOP should lead this movement
*****************************

 Effort building to change US pot laws


Feb 4, 4:26 PM (ET)

By GENE JOHNSON

Effort building to change US pot laws
 

SEATTLE (AP) - An effort is building in Congress to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a hefty federal pot tax.

While passage this year could be a longshot, lawmakers from both parties have been quietly working on several bills, the first of which Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado plan to introduce Tuesday, Blumenauer told The Associated Press.

Polis' measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, and it would remain illegal to bring marijuana from a state where it's legal to one where it isn't.

The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.

Blumenauer's bill would create a federal marijuana excise tax of 50 percent on the "first sale" of marijuana - typically, from a grower to a processor or retailer. It also would tax pot producers or importers $1,000 annually and other marijuana businesses $500.

His office said Monday it doesn't yet have an estimate of how much the taxes might bring in. But a policy paper Blumenauer and Polis are releasing this week suggests, based on admittedly vague estimates, that a federal tax of $50 per ounce could raise $20 billion a year. They call for directing the money to law enforcement, substance abuse treatment and the national debt.

Last fall's votes in Colorado and Washington state to legalize recreational marijuana should push Congress to end the 75-year federal pot prohibition, Blumenauer said.

Washington state officials have estimated that its legal marijuana market could bring in about half a billion dollars a year in state taxes.

"You folks in Washington and my friends in Colorado really upset the apple cart," Blumenauer said. "We're still arresting two-thirds of a million people for use of a substance that a majority feel should be legal. ... It's past time for us to step in and try to sort this stuff out."

Advocates who are working with the lawmakers acknowledge it could take years for any changes to get through Congress, but they're encouraged by recent developments. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week came out in support of efforts to legalize hemp in his home state of Kentucky, and U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is expected to introduce legislation allowing states to set their own policy on marijuana.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has indicated he plans to hold a hearing on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws and has urged an end to federal "mandatory minimum" sentences that lead to long prison stints for drug crimes.

"We're seeing enormous political momentum to undo the drug war failings of the past 40 years," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, who has been working with lawmakers on marijuana-related bills. "For the first time, the wind is behind our back."

The Justice Department hasn't said how it plans to respond to the votes in Washington and Colorado. It could sue to block the states from issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, on the grounds that doing so would conflict with federal drug law.

Blumenauer and Polis' paper urges a number of changes, including altering tax codes to let marijuana dispensaries deduct business expenses on federal taxes, and making it easier for marijuana-related businesses to get bank accounts. Many operate on a cash basis because federally insured banks won't work with them, they noted.

Blumenauer said he expects to introduce the tax-code legislation as well as a bill that would reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing states to enact medical marijuana laws without fear that federal authorities will continue raiding dispensaries or prosecuting providers. It makes no sense that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, in the same category as heroin and a more restrictive category than cocaine, Blumenauer said.

The measures have little chance of passing, said Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser. Sabet recently joined former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy and former President George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum in forming a group called Project SAM - for "smart approaches to marijuana" - to counter the growing legalization movement. Sabet noted that previous federal legalization measures have always failed.

"These are really extreme solutions to the marijuana problem we have in this country," Sabet said. "The marijuana problem we have is a problem of addiction among kids, and stigma of people who have a criminal record for marijuana crimes.

"There are a lot more people in Congress who think that marijuana should be illegal but treated as a public health problem, than think it should be legal."

Project SAM suggests people shouldn't get criminal records for small-time marijuana offenses, but instead could face probation or treatment.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130204/DA482F300.html

Before the southern secession and the War Between the States, the first secession threat in American history actually came from the North.

Half a century before the southern states left the Union in 1860-1861, the people of the New England states plotted to break from the Union. This culminated in the Hartford Convention of 1814, in which delegates narrowly voted against secession.

New England resentment toward the federal government generally began when Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801. Although there were no political parties at the time, Jefferson led a faction called the “Democratic-Republicans” (or Republicans) that favored an economy based on agriculture, expansion, and weaker ties to Britain. This contrasted with the “Federalist” faction, which emphasized manufacturing over farming and stronger ties to Britain. Federalists were most prevalent in New England.

When Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, New Englanders feared that America would be opened to “hordes of foreigners” that would threaten the nation’s ethnic purity. They also feared that the new territory would someday be carved into southern states that could politically diminish New England. By 1804, Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, a former adjutant general to George Washington in the War for Independence, urged his fellow New Englanders to consider seceding from the Union.

During much of Jefferson’s presidency, Britain and France were at war, and U.S. shipping suffered collateral damage as a result. Jefferson responded by signing the Embargo Act, which intended to deprive British and French markets of U.S. goods by prohibiting the U.S. from trading with either country.

U.S. markets suffered from the loss of two of their main trading partners. New Englanders were especially harmed by the Embargo Act because of their reliance on foreign trade, mostly with Britain. Many condemned Jefferson’s “damnbargo” and resorted to illegal smuggling while talk of secession intensified.

Jefferson was succeeded as president by James Madison, another southern Republican. Madison proved even more unpopular among New Englanders by approving the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, which strengthened Jefferson’s trade embargo. New Englanders responded by issuing a “Treaty of Alliance and Confederation,” declaring that the central government was just an association of states and had no authority to impose such harsh measures.

Alienating New England further was Madison’s initiation of the War of 1812 against Britain. This war ended all legal trade with Britain, which was New England’s largest trading partner. New England Federalists feared that another war with Britain would destroy their commerce and tax them into poverty.

When Madison ordered the War Department to commandeer state militias for the war, the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to furnish troops. The Connecticut legislature denounced Madison’s military draft plan as “barbarous and unconstitutional.” The Massachusetts legislature approved assembling a convention to air grievances against the federal government.

The Hartford Convention assembled at the Old State House in Connecticut’s state capital in December 1814. Attending were 26 delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The delegates considered several measures, including seizing the federal customs houses, impounding federal funds, declaring neutrality, and seceding from the Union.

Many delegates shied from secession because they feared that if they supported such a move, and New England remained in the Union, their political careers would be ruined. Moreover, New York refused to send representation, and most convention delegates believed that secession could not be sustained without New York. Therefore, a series of constitutional amendments were proposed as an alternate to secession. These were designed to limit federal power and protect New England interests:

    Apportioning representatives and taxes according to the number of free people in each state. This would repeal the “three-fifths” clause in which each southern slave was counted as three-fifths of a person to increase southern population and decrease southern taxation, thus giving the South more representation in Congress with fewer taxes.
    Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to admit a new state into the Union. This would minimize the potential creation of southern states within the Louisiana Purchase.
    Limiting trade embargoes on U.S. ports to 60 days or less. This would reduce the adverse effects of future embargo laws on New England commerce.
    Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to interfere with trade between any state and any foreign country. This would minimize federal control over New England’s trade with Britain.
    Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to declare war, except in cases of defense. This would prevent future unpopular conflicts such as the War of 1812.
    Requiring senators and representatives to have been born in the U.S. This would prevent foreign influence on the federal government, mostly among pro-French Republicans.
    Limiting presidents to one term and requiring a succeeding president to come from a different state than his predecessor. This would break Virginia’s presidential dynasty of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

In addition, the delegates asserted their right to resist abusive government power. This was a right that was ironically endorsed by their political enemy, Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. It was the same right invoked by the southern states when they seceded from the Union three generations later.

The delegates narrowly voted against seceding from the Union, and no official resolution to secede was adopted. Moreover, no official document asserted the right to secede, mainly because it was believed that the right was inherent and its assertion would be redundant. There was also no indication that any delegate believed that endorsing secession was treason.

Commissioners were designated to present the Hartford Convention demands to federal officials in Washington. However, the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 before the commissioners reached the capital. With the war ended, the New England Federalists’ demands were perceived as irrelevant at best and subversive at worst.

Remembering New England’s refusal to participate in the war, Americans throughout the rest of the country turned against the region. The legality of secession was not questioned, but many viewed New Englanders as traitors for considering secession in a time of war. The anger was so pervasive that the Federalist faction dissolved within a decade.

New Englanders exercised what they believed to be their inherent right to oppose an overbearing, tyrannical federal government that favored southern interests ahead of their own. As time went on, southerners came to embrace the ideals of the Hartford Convention, making the same charge against Washington as did the New Englanders.

Had New Englanders voted to secede in 1814, the federal government most likely would not have stopped them. However, by the time the southern states seceded in 1860-1861, supporters of centralized government equated secession with treason, even though they were not one and the same according to the nation’s founders. This sectional dispute, which had originated in the North, led to the most terrible war in American history.


http://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-northern-secession/

It's long but it seems pretty thorough.

http://eudaimoniabygrace.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/a-few-thoughts-on-gun-control/

WHICH MERELY DEMONSTRATES THE VALUE OF HIS "WORK":
Software developer Bob outsources own job and whiles away shifts on cat videos : Verizon's hunt for firm's mysterious hacker exposes 'top worker' at firm who let Chinese consultants log on to do his daily work (Caroline Davies, 1/17/13, guardian.co.uk)


    When a routine security check by a US-based company showed someone was repeatedly logging on to their computer system from China, it naturally sent alarm bells ringing. Hackers were suspected and telecoms experts were called in.

    It was only after a thorough investigation that it was revealed that the culprit was not a hacker, but "Bob" (not his real name), an "inoffensive and quiet" family man and the company's top-performing programmer, who could be seen toiling at his desk day after day and staring diligently at his monitor.

    For Bob had come up with the idea of outsourcing his own job - to China. So, while a Chinese consulting firm got on with the job he was paid to do, on less than one-fifth of his salary, he whiled away his working day surfing Reddit, eBay and Facebook.

One hopes we aren't being catfished, but, regardless, it reflects what we know to be true: the most valuable white collar employee is just as fungible as his blue collar co-worker.

http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2013/01/which_merely_demonstrates_the_.html

PJTV: Afterburner: Reservoirs