I recall my father's birthday in 1989 when my grandmother presented him with a piece of family history, land deeds issued as pay to a Confederate soldier that were signed by the President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis. Up until this moment I had no idea. "Our family owned slaves, grandma?"
My grandmother was this amazingly serene, disarmingly slight woman, raised in the deepest recesses of pre-civil rights Crenshaw, Alabama that every once in awhile made brow-raising comments that at that time defied narrative. I remember how she just looked at me and smiled before saying, "Oh no dear, our family was too poor. Slaves were for the rich people. We just fought the war for them," and left it at that. Like other such statements, her soft-toned response remained emphatic and I knew not to question it any further. We had these conversations a lot.
This morning though I was thinking about that distant relative. The man that left his small tobacco farm where he eked out a meager living for his wife and family to fight for another's Laissez-faire interest in maintaining an impoverished class. In effect he was fighting against his own interests. He had a tract of land that he and his family farmed without the luxury of growth and free labor. The land he was paid in was sold on his return to cover the lost expenses of fighting for an institution that really didn't care for his competition. Southern plantations flourished while southern farms withered and died.
In our society we operate on the supply and demand interests of capitalism. The more workers that are available for production, the lower the wages. Slavery naturally brought that the supply side to near zero when you consider that all a slave owner had to do was pay the initial purchase price, and set aside resources for housing and food.
Some slave owners even made money back by further exploiting slaves as a resource through breeding or lending their pregnant slaves to the care of Dr. J. Marion Sims in his less than kind effort to perfect the practice of episiotomy. This is indeed on the level of innovations in hypothermia research, skin grafting, and plastic surgery as perfected by Dr. Josef Mengele's experiments on prisoners at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Overall the subject is innovation through exploitation. Innovation isn't just new technologies as it's also recognized in new philosophies, business practices, and economic models. Were we to turn off all of the electronics we would still see that innovation is all around us, but not all of it is OK.
Certainly I've been criticized on the left as embracing protectionism on the side of preserving the American middle-class just as I've been criticized on the right for being critical of free trade agreements that undermine the American middle-class. But I've never been criticized for my stance on human rights. And it makes me wonder why we're OK with outsourcing our slavery? Part of what makes multinationals successful is their ability to acquire labor in areas not only free of tax and tariff, but free of labor and safety laws. That is innovation through exploitation.
Looking back to where we've come from I found this Reason.com article from 2006 advocating free trade. That means it was written pre-Wal-Mart empire and pre-Dhaka, Bangladesh factory fire. It was written before we learned the hard lesson that always low prices come at a human premium. So why don't we make the next innovation one that demands equality through labor and safety laws for American companies using foreign labor for the American market? At the same time lessen some of the domestic agricultural subsidies while taxing the outsourced market that seeks to cut corners by de-legitimizing their costs through dismissing livable wages and workplace safety. Obviously free trade has become the new slavery.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Saturday, November 24, 2012
The Tenth Amendment Elephant in the Room
The War on
Drugs is no more successful than the War on Terror. Cocaine trafficking didn’t magically
stop when the CIA/DEA Centra Spike Team assassinated Pablo Escobar. That was a termination of
employment, not enforcement. Just like with any other management level
termination or assassination, another person simply took his place. The well-established fact that your government has been in bed with the Cartels with evidence going back to the Reagan Administration is not up for debate, but does lend to the idea that the
deck is stacked against you, whether you’re a drug user or not.
In 2010 the
Federal Government budgeted $15 billion dollars for drug war enforcement. Here
just three years later they are nearly doubling that amount with a 2013 budget of $26 billion to combat the ever growing menace, on which in 2009
it was estimated that Americans spend $64 billion on each year. The incongruity of the numbers alone means to me that
the nation’s policy is not one of enforcement so much as it is a regulation of
trade.
Currently
the United States is spending about $500 every second on fighting
the drug war. These costs are seen in specialized police and military deployed
here and abroad. A penal and judicial system that sees’s nearly half of its
cases being drug related. People, time, equipment, and money, spread across the
states through enforcement and judicial systems adds up to more than $36.7
trillion drain on the economy so far this year alone, as of this writing.
Where this
comes back to roost is when you consider that an estimate one of every 100
US adults is currently behind bars, although DoJ statistics
suggest that number is starting to plateau or even fall. While this number is
dropping, it does not change the fact that the Land of the Free has the highest incarceration rate in the world. While the plateau or drop could easily be
attributed to prison overcrowding that has resulted in early intervention and release programs, the fact remains that one in 31
adults are currently under some form of court supervision where they enjoy as
much as a 90% recidivism rate meaning that 90% of participants will be arrested again for
the same or related charges. That’s not success. That’s your money.
Given that
information, 52% of all drug arrests in the United States are marijuana related meaning 48%
are parsed out between harder drugs like your government subsidized cocaine and heroin
habits, healthcare subsidized abused medications, LSD, banana peels, whatever. In as much as the first two are exclusively manufactured
abroad, marijuana accounts for 60% of imported narcotics while domestically cultivated cannabis accounts for as much as 80% of marijuana consumed in the US. The point of course being that the policy of attacking
marijuana as a gateway drug is a fool’s errand as its popularity and
availability lends to its potential growth as a used and abused substance that
on its face has less of a negative impact than either tobacco or alcohol.
Using the
numbers provided by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness, legalization in Colorado and Washington
alone can translate to as much as $46.2 billion dollars being retained in local
economies. Of the $114.2 billion spent annually on drug treatment, only 14% of persons being admitted listed marijuana which may only be as much since
18% of all admissions were for co-occurring addictions where one or more other substances
such as cocaine, heroin, or alcoholism were in play. Even if we disregard the co-occurring
factor, marijuana would only account for $16 billion in annual treatment costs.
By way of comparison in 2006 Americans spent $83.6 billion on tobacco related products. In the period leading up to those numbers, 2000 – 2004, cigarette
smoking alone was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States. The
economic costs of alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion
while Americans are expected to account for around $120 billion in sales. Clearly the matter of regulation and enforcement is arbitrary
as it is not substantiated by matters of health, morality, or economy. So what
is it all about?
First of
course there is the money that goes into the states from the federal level to
subsidize drug control initiatives by way of grants from the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
This program alone boasts of funding 17,000 state, local, and tribal officers,
analysts, and other representatives while removing a combined $32 billion from
the illicit drug trade while dismantling 2,925 drug trafficking organizations.
Funds from the individual seizures go directly back into the departments that
made the arrests. At the same time prisons are given state and federal money for each prison held that has given rise
to the private prison industry, many of which have a required occupancy rate. States will actually have to pay a penalty for not keeping
a set number of citizens in jail which disincentivizes rehabilitation. So long
as there’s more money to be had by enterprise, nothing will change.
In this
manner the transfer of taxpayer money into private hands is nothing new. The
early War on Drugs itself started as a matter of legislating in favor of
business beginning with the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act of 1932 of which Dow Chemical was a lobby
in the inclusion of Marijuana whose naturally insect resistant production competed
with the cotton industry that was dependent on Dow Chemical for pest
management. At that same time DuPont had also patented nylon of which hemp was a direct competitor, and William Randolph Hearst, whom had heavily invested himself in the deforestation of North
America found that hemp was a major competitor to wood-pulp paper production.
These same groups were also mentioned as co-conspirators to the Business Plot of 1933 in which
a group of American businessmen approached General Smedley Butler
for his help in overthrowing the United States government. None were ever
charged.
Up until
this time hemp production was a part of American life going back to the
Colonies when King James I in 1619, ordered every colonist to grow 100 plants specifically for
export that was used in the manufacture of rope and other textiles. Industrial
hemp had many uses in early America as at the time it was used in the
manufacture of textiles and even paper production where as much as 90% of the world’s paper was hemp until regulation began in 1883. The turning point
was two-fold in that the period coincided with the influx of Chinese immigrants
building the continental railroad that brought with them hashish parlors and
opium dens; complaints from soldiers that the drug didn’t provide a long-term
alternative to injury treatment; and that marijuana cigarettes were commonly
smoked by Mexican soldiers during the US-Mexican War. The latter argument was resurrected
in 1932 when the marijuana prohibition lobby put into the American psyche that
marijuana incited “Mexicans and negroes” to go on murderous rampages; innocent white women seduced into
ruin; and teenagers going instantly insane. It is from this period that we get
the movie, Reefer Madness.
Since that time much knowledge has come by way of legitimate
research into the field of cannabis that has seen its returning to medicinal use in a few states and
the recent legalization for recreational use in Washington and Colorado. With the exception of supporters, few recognize this as being
the will of the people suggesting that the majority doesn’t support the
measure, regardless that the majority of those that bothered to actually vote
did. While the two states wait for their cue from the Federal Government before creating a
control policy, the United Nations has begun pushing the federal Government for a fight on the issue
of state level legalization despite of Obama saying that the issue belonged to
the states.
The issue of
legalization has truly become an issue of states’ rights, once
the call of Reagan
that leading up to the 2012 election and immediately afterwards was the rallying cry of the GOP. They’ve been remarkably silent on this issue, so much to the point
that a Democrat
had to pick it up in seeking not to allow the Federal Government to usurp local
authority. The same as they were silent on the issue of raids inside California
and their legal dispensaries. This hypocrisy
is perhaps best exampled in laws in states like South Carolina and others that require employers to perform a mandatory check on
the residency status of immigrants unless they are employed as nannies or
groundskeepers, AKA employed by the affluent.
Clearly the
only right they care about is their right to do as they please. Otherwise Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t shut up about
it, even though he was caught up in substance abuse. Glen Beck would be on the television
drawing us pictures of some grand conspiracy to keep him from smoking pot. Bill O’Rielly would be screaming on Fox
News about this lapse in freedom. Rep. John Boehner would be standing at the speaker, crying about Obama ruining his
country. Sarah Palin would of course say something about how great Alaskan weed is. In
fact, I’m sure even Mitt Romney would
be seeking the endorsement of Snoop Dogg.
But none of that happens. They don’t have your interests at heart. They’re only
in it for themselves, and the sooner everyone recognizes whose interests they are working for, the better.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Some of why I'm not voting for @MittRomney
How the Invisible Hand of Government works is
by taxing activities that it wants to limit while incentivizing
activities it wants to encourage. Taxes over and above sales-tax, such
as on alcohol or tobacco are meant to regulate their use while
incentives like deductions on home, work, education, and family size
are meant to encourage settling down, buying a home, and having kids.
It's a system of punishment and reward that's been effectively used for
quite some time. You can take the red pill or you can take the blue pill, it's called free will, but I'll slap your hand if you take the red
pill and tell you that you're a 'good boy' if you take the blue. It's
simple training and we all respond to it.
See a toddler playing with a set of keys near an electrical socket? Dog shits on the floor? You know what to do. That's you enforcing the invisible hand of government that modifies behavior to affect the decisions of others for those moments of when someone is not looking over their shoulder's. Failure to heed these social controls can result in taxes, fines, incarceration, or even death when it's taken far enough. It's just what makes society function. Encourage. Discourage. Seriously, it's the foundation of capitalism. The person that conceptualized it is the only non-monarch or politician to be pictured on a British Bank Note. Adam Smith rivals Ben Franklin on his impact in creating the world we live in today. His writing helped inspire Theodore Roosevelt in creating the National Parks System. It was from his and the writings of John Locke that we got the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
Now of course on the side of encourage and discourage, larger corporations are being encouraged to outsource work while small businesses are being heavily taxed to make up the revenue. Our government signing into free trade agreements only compounds the issue because it limits their ability to bring American industry back. Adam Smith also wrote about this.
On the individual level just as taxes on alcohol or tobacco are meant to discourage, that same discouragement is used to regulate industries in other ways through secondary means. You may smoke or drink and pay the taxes because you can afford that little extra bite in the wallet. You may speed because you're OK with getting that ticket or the increase in your car insurance premiums. Just like Paul Ryan, as an avid bow hunter, could afford the extra taxes on archery equipment when he created a law that added taxes to its cost and use. It's the same as when Mitt Romney passed a law that increased fees on horseback riding instructors. He could afford to pay the little extra because after all his wife Ann is an avid fan of equestrian events. Or even when as the Governor of Massachusetts when Romney raised gun licensing fees from $25 to $100. He could afford it, but also on its face was an attempt to limit availability of the right to carry a firearm. It's the same as Romney's secondary function would limit the amount of people that his wife Ann would be made to compete against in an event, or Paul Ryan's would limit competing bow hunters in the same forest he was hunting. It wasn't exactly poaching that got Robin Hood in trouble when he was found in King Henry's forest.
See a toddler playing with a set of keys near an electrical socket? Dog shits on the floor? You know what to do. That's you enforcing the invisible hand of government that modifies behavior to affect the decisions of others for those moments of when someone is not looking over their shoulder's. Failure to heed these social controls can result in taxes, fines, incarceration, or even death when it's taken far enough. It's just what makes society function. Encourage. Discourage. Seriously, it's the foundation of capitalism. The person that conceptualized it is the only non-monarch or politician to be pictured on a British Bank Note. Adam Smith rivals Ben Franklin on his impact in creating the world we live in today. His writing helped inspire Theodore Roosevelt in creating the National Parks System. It was from his and the writings of John Locke that we got the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
Now of course on the side of encourage and discourage, larger corporations are being encouraged to outsource work while small businesses are being heavily taxed to make up the revenue. Our government signing into free trade agreements only compounds the issue because it limits their ability to bring American industry back. Adam Smith also wrote about this.
On the individual level just as taxes on alcohol or tobacco are meant to discourage, that same discouragement is used to regulate industries in other ways through secondary means. You may smoke or drink and pay the taxes because you can afford that little extra bite in the wallet. You may speed because you're OK with getting that ticket or the increase in your car insurance premiums. Just like Paul Ryan, as an avid bow hunter, could afford the extra taxes on archery equipment when he created a law that added taxes to its cost and use. It's the same as when Mitt Romney passed a law that increased fees on horseback riding instructors. He could afford to pay the little extra because after all his wife Ann is an avid fan of equestrian events. Or even when as the Governor of Massachusetts when Romney raised gun licensing fees from $25 to $100. He could afford it, but also on its face was an attempt to limit availability of the right to carry a firearm. It's the same as Romney's secondary function would limit the amount of people that his wife Ann would be made to compete against in an event, or Paul Ryan's would limit competing bow hunters in the same forest he was hunting. It wasn't exactly poaching that got Robin Hood in trouble when he was found in King Henry's forest.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes
I hated onions as a child. I recall entering a store with my mother when I was a child of three or four years old. She'd planned to make a potato salad and some calamari for a BBQ we were attending and ran a list of items needed. I questioned their necessity in the potato salad when she read off onions. "Because it's illegal not too," was the short answer. I seriously thought there would be police involved and I continued believing this until I was about 6 or 7 when I learned otherwise.
Why I bring up this uncomfortable episode from my childhood is that it perfectly illustrates how a person in authority will effectively lie in an effort to suit their own agenda. I don’t fault my mom for this. It’s really no different from other tools of indoctrination such as Santa Clause or other pseudo non-corporeal authoritarian figures meant to affect individual behavior for the benefit of a community. She could have said, “Because I like onions. Deal with it.” Or, “Because everyone else likes onions. It’s you that’s different.” But she didn’t. I was a small child and my mom never really was that abrasive. Besides children that age don’t exactly have a handle on their position in the world and are oft likely to test boundaries. Thus we have Santa Clause or other pseudo non-corporeal authoritarian figures to fit whatever occasion.
There are literally thousands of gods, goddesses, saints, prophets, and other incarnations to choose from to suit a specific purpose. Do you want help winning the big game? Make an offering to the Greek Goddess of victory, Nike. You want to express humility for that amazing touchdown? There’s a Jesus for that. Problem training your dogs? Try St. Hubert. Need a standard of food safety in regards to pork or shellfish? The Talmud, Qu’ran, and Holy Bible all have variations on the Book of Leviticus. In fact if you see something in society that you don’t like be they the actions of a group or individual, you can take comfort in that their mortal actions will carry on into the afterlife by mechanisms of karma, being removed from the light of god, or just outright eternal damnation. What better way of manipulation is there to modify a person’s behavior short of physical abuse?
It’s simply cheaper and easier to tell a person that they will face some unseen punishment than it is to explain the truth of a matter, thus it is easier to control an uneducated population.
Do we need institutions that reinforce morality? It helps, but whose morality and necessarily are they just compounding intolerance towards others of dissimilar faiths. Three of the religions that I referenced earlier have the same foundation, so legitimately the same god, but one split off and decided that god should have a son, and then another split saying that son was just another prophet before their current one. They sit like riders on a Bill before it’s ratified into law. Religion is a governing body with its own purposes and agendas that knows no border, though depending on where you are born more than divine planning. If you’re born in the United States, you are likely to be born a Christian. In the Middle East, overwhelmingly you’re likely a Muslim. In Israel, by law you should be a Jew. Each is culturally specific to be inclusive of the society following its edicts, and exclusionary of those devices that may challenge it. Why? Because fuck you. That’s why.
We can of course contrast and compare all day long in regards to how you are of the chosen in this divine plan while 72% of the population has been condemned to burn in hell on the day that they were born. Or that 98% of the population will await resurrection in Gehenna. Or that all but the true believers will suffer in Jahannam for all eternity. We can discuss why the first European immigrants came to the Americas, what our founding father's had to say about our Christian nation, the sanctity of marriage, immaculate conception verses rape and contraception, contributions to contemporary culture, charitable extensions, or even that moment when you really felt alone. But let’s discuss historical fact where in American history alone we can also discuss burning people at the stake, manifest destiny, the segregation of communities, the subjugation of women, or the firebombing of clinics and the assassinations of medical personnel. Globally we can discuss 77 dead in Norway, inquisitions that lasted up until 1988, the 6 million dead at the hands of Nazi ideology, or even the one-thousand years of history called the Dark Ages.
But society is better than all that. God after all is a fluid being designed in the image of man to suit the purposes of an individual’s idea of community that are not necessarily in line with communities competing for the same resources. Whether it was yesterday, 32, 80, 400, or 900 years ago, it’s not today. It’s not here. It’s not this moment. It’s not until the next terrorist, martyr, or patriot rises up to rampage a youth camp, mixed singles event, or family planning clinic, and even then the people will bury their heads in the sand looking for ways they are different rather than seeing how they are the same.
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes"
Why I bring up this uncomfortable episode from my childhood is that it perfectly illustrates how a person in authority will effectively lie in an effort to suit their own agenda. I don’t fault my mom for this. It’s really no different from other tools of indoctrination such as Santa Clause or other pseudo non-corporeal authoritarian figures meant to affect individual behavior for the benefit of a community. She could have said, “Because I like onions. Deal with it.” Or, “Because everyone else likes onions. It’s you that’s different.” But she didn’t. I was a small child and my mom never really was that abrasive. Besides children that age don’t exactly have a handle on their position in the world and are oft likely to test boundaries. Thus we have Santa Clause or other pseudo non-corporeal authoritarian figures to fit whatever occasion.
There are literally thousands of gods, goddesses, saints, prophets, and other incarnations to choose from to suit a specific purpose. Do you want help winning the big game? Make an offering to the Greek Goddess of victory, Nike. You want to express humility for that amazing touchdown? There’s a Jesus for that. Problem training your dogs? Try St. Hubert. Need a standard of food safety in regards to pork or shellfish? The Talmud, Qu’ran, and Holy Bible all have variations on the Book of Leviticus. In fact if you see something in society that you don’t like be they the actions of a group or individual, you can take comfort in that their mortal actions will carry on into the afterlife by mechanisms of karma, being removed from the light of god, or just outright eternal damnation. What better way of manipulation is there to modify a person’s behavior short of physical abuse?
It’s simply cheaper and easier to tell a person that they will face some unseen punishment than it is to explain the truth of a matter, thus it is easier to control an uneducated population.
Do we need institutions that reinforce morality? It helps, but whose morality and necessarily are they just compounding intolerance towards others of dissimilar faiths. Three of the religions that I referenced earlier have the same foundation, so legitimately the same god, but one split off and decided that god should have a son, and then another split saying that son was just another prophet before their current one. They sit like riders on a Bill before it’s ratified into law. Religion is a governing body with its own purposes and agendas that knows no border, though depending on where you are born more than divine planning. If you’re born in the United States, you are likely to be born a Christian. In the Middle East, overwhelmingly you’re likely a Muslim. In Israel, by law you should be a Jew. Each is culturally specific to be inclusive of the society following its edicts, and exclusionary of those devices that may challenge it. Why? Because fuck you. That’s why.
We can of course contrast and compare all day long in regards to how you are of the chosen in this divine plan while 72% of the population has been condemned to burn in hell on the day that they were born. Or that 98% of the population will await resurrection in Gehenna. Or that all but the true believers will suffer in Jahannam for all eternity. We can discuss why the first European immigrants came to the Americas, what our founding father's had to say about our Christian nation, the sanctity of marriage, immaculate conception verses rape and contraception, contributions to contemporary culture, charitable extensions, or even that moment when you really felt alone. But let’s discuss historical fact where in American history alone we can also discuss burning people at the stake, manifest destiny, the segregation of communities, the subjugation of women, or the firebombing of clinics and the assassinations of medical personnel. Globally we can discuss 77 dead in Norway, inquisitions that lasted up until 1988, the 6 million dead at the hands of Nazi ideology, or even the one-thousand years of history called the Dark Ages.
But society is better than all that. God after all is a fluid being designed in the image of man to suit the purposes of an individual’s idea of community that are not necessarily in line with communities competing for the same resources. Whether it was yesterday, 32, 80, 400, or 900 years ago, it’s not today. It’s not here. It’s not this moment. It’s not until the next terrorist, martyr, or patriot rises up to rampage a youth camp, mixed singles event, or family planning clinic, and even then the people will bury their heads in the sand looking for ways they are different rather than seeing how they are the same.
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes"
Friday, August 3, 2012
The Forgotten Issue with Chick-fil-A
Like many, I am upset over Chick-fil-A donating large amounts of money to lobby for anti-gay legislation that is based on the faith
of the company's owner, Dan Cathy.
IMO Dan Cathy (President and founder of Chick-fil-A) is
entitled to his freedom of speech and is entitle to donate HIS money as he sees
fit because he is a person. Indeed
people are upset over how he exercises his freedom of speech and that is sad.
People should be allowed to believe as they want just as those that disagree would
be doing a better public service by seeking to understand a person’s beliefs and
by educating the public on the specifics of the issue. Not doing so is a failure in society. And just like the conservative furor over
Oreo's, the protesting side too forgets about the recent, and not so recent
past. These protesters attacking Cathy for exercising his freedom of speech
threaten the credibility of protesting Chick-fil-A supporting anti-gay legislation with
criticism that cannot even withstand the scrutiny of Sarah Palin. They’ve
already lost.
The issue that should be focused on here is that unlike Cathy,
Chick-fil-A is not a person. It is a business and regardless of the 2010 US
Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. The FEC, corporations are not
people and are not entitled to exercise their freedom of speech. Corporate
influence is one of the gravest threats to the US political system.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as bad advertising
which is why I am bothered that protesters have allowed the issue to be made one of free speech.
It will only compel others to patronize the offending institution while still others that
don't give a shit about its practices one way or the other will not change their
buying patterns. Educating the both sides of the debate would be a more
constructive manner of affecting change in the system rather than the planned Kiss-In that will only likely affect employees and franchise owners.
Just as where many were already afraid to speak out against their employer, and in this case, franchises speaking out against corporate policy, the issue is made a bit more complex in today's uncertain economy. Affected employees my find prospects of finding new employment a bit scarce, especially for the people with only a high school diploma or less that makes up a the majority of the unemployed population. This of course emphasizes the problem of downward mobility and a shrinking middle class.
Just as where many were already afraid to speak out against their employer, and in this case, franchises speaking out against corporate policy, the issue is made a bit more complex in today's uncertain economy. Affected employees my find prospects of finding new employment a bit scarce, especially for the people with only a high school diploma or less that makes up a the majority of the unemployed population. This of course emphasizes the problem of downward mobility and a shrinking middle class.
Beginning with an organization that Chick-fil-A made donations to, Exodus International, they went beyond shaping American
politics to shaping politics in countries that are noted for human rights
violations and acts of extreme cruelty such as Uganda that made it legal to
execute homosexuals for being homosexuals. That's not supporting free speech.
That's supporting state terrorism.
It wasn't until five months after the passage of the Uganda's Anti-Homosexual Law, following public outcry
and a possible threat to their status as a 501(c)(3) in a March 2010 that
Exodus International publicly distanced themselves from the Ugandan government
with an open letter to the President of Uganda by saying, "Exodus
International believes that every human life, regardless of an individual’s
sexual behavior, is of inestimable worth to God and that defending this
principle is foundational in offering a Christian response to any issue."
It's amazing how easily a God made in man's image changes
his mind. The Biblical God would have stood by the Ugandan law requiring execution as it pretty much mirrors His own.
Just as in 2009 with Exodus International, it will
take an all-around effort of educating the public to influence
the corporate policy of Chick-fil-A. At the same time the invisible hand of government may do well to encourage Cathy to start a private foundation through
which he can support anti-gay groups on his own.
Monday, July 30, 2012
The Police State Act: An Issue With Which Everyone Should Be Concerned
It would seem that the Large Capacity Magazine Ban has been inserted into the Cyber Security Act of 2012 in Section 2575 as a compromise move with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and is set for a debate tomorrow with a push towards a vote being made for later this week. Of course compromise is good. It's what politics are about in ensuring that we are equally represented, but this compromise is at the detriment to the people. Left or right, everyone would be equally disfranchised by this legislation.
I'm assuming of course that we are all aware of CISPA, but let's cover the finer points of the Large Capacity Magazine Ban in the Cyber Security Act of 2012. It's important to note that the magazine ban would ban the sale or transfer, public and private, of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Law enforcement or military? Let me repeat that, to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Take as long as you need to think that one over.
Law enforcement or military, but not you.
That being said most double stack magazines hold around 14 rounds so this ban would include popular concealed carry firearms like Glock, Beretta, and CZ. In turn I've read that many police departments require their officer's service weapons to be large capacity magazine and that is why you don't see cops carrying a Colt 1911, which is a combat tested gun. In fact the Colt 1911 is so popular with the military that the US Marines recently put in a $22.5 million order for their armories. This of course is not connected with the Department of Homeland Security March 2012 order of 450 million rounds from local manufacturer ATK. The ordered rounds were .40 caliber while the 1911 is a .45.
The more common civilian caliber is the 9mm for the estimated 80 million private owners in the United States. So let's say that you were one of these owners and you passed away. What happens to your semi-automatic? Better question, what would happen to your family?
Well...whoever would be heir to that firearm would be a felon since the private transfer of not the weapon, but the magazine would be illegal. Your wife your husband, your now adult child over the age of 21, anyone who comes into possession of that magazine after you would be a felon thus making them ineligible to own a firearm. I assume you would be expected to call the police so they could come collect it, thus it becomes a legitimate war of attrition.
Whether you are for or against the private ownership of guns, this is an important issue. Think about this quote from one of the key framers of the US Constitution, "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson said that. He also said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." But best of all he said, "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." He also said something about the "Tree of Liberty," but that is a conversation for another time.
Now I don't know about you, but I know quite a few liberal minded protesters that are pretty concerned with the government, today. Last night one even dropped the F-word, fear, and when a liberal fears the policies of a Democrat President, it's time to start having some frank conversations with your politicians. Here is a list of Utah's current Congressional delegation. Feel free to contact them regarding this issue. If you are outside of Utah, then you can lookup members of your own delegation HERE.
Tell them NO on CISPA, S.3414 and NO on the Large Capacity Magazine Ban, S. 2575. In the same call, tell them YES on another measure in the bill, the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act that would require law enforcement to get a warrant before tracking your movements surreptitiously.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st District)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd District)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT 3rd District)
I'm assuming of course that we are all aware of CISPA, but let's cover the finer points of the Large Capacity Magazine Ban in the Cyber Security Act of 2012. It's important to note that the magazine ban would ban the sale or transfer, public and private, of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Law enforcement or military? Let me repeat that, to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Take as long as you need to think that one over.
Law enforcement or military, but not you.
That being said most double stack magazines hold around 14 rounds so this ban would include popular concealed carry firearms like Glock, Beretta, and CZ. In turn I've read that many police departments require their officer's service weapons to be large capacity magazine and that is why you don't see cops carrying a Colt 1911, which is a combat tested gun. In fact the Colt 1911 is so popular with the military that the US Marines recently put in a $22.5 million order for their armories. This of course is not connected with the Department of Homeland Security March 2012 order of 450 million rounds from local manufacturer ATK. The ordered rounds were .40 caliber while the 1911 is a .45.
The more common civilian caliber is the 9mm for the estimated 80 million private owners in the United States. So let's say that you were one of these owners and you passed away. What happens to your semi-automatic? Better question, what would happen to your family?
Well...whoever would be heir to that firearm would be a felon since the private transfer of not the weapon, but the magazine would be illegal. Your wife your husband, your now adult child over the age of 21, anyone who comes into possession of that magazine after you would be a felon thus making them ineligible to own a firearm. I assume you would be expected to call the police so they could come collect it, thus it becomes a legitimate war of attrition.
Whether you are for or against the private ownership of guns, this is an important issue. Think about this quote from one of the key framers of the US Constitution, "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson said that. He also said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." But best of all he said, "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." He also said something about the "Tree of Liberty," but that is a conversation for another time.
Now I don't know about you, but I know quite a few liberal minded protesters that are pretty concerned with the government, today. Last night one even dropped the F-word, fear, and when a liberal fears the policies of a Democrat President, it's time to start having some frank conversations with your politicians. Here is a list of Utah's current Congressional delegation. Feel free to contact them regarding this issue. If you are outside of Utah, then you can lookup members of your own delegation HERE.
Tell them NO on CISPA, S.3414 and NO on the Large Capacity Magazine Ban, S. 2575. In the same call, tell them YES on another measure in the bill, the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act that would require law enforcement to get a warrant before tracking your movements surreptitiously.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
- Washington DC: 202-224-5251
- Salt Lake City: 801-524-4380
- Provo: 801-375-7881
- St. George: 435-634-1795
- Ogden: 801-625-5672
- Cedar City: 435-586-8435
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st District)
- Washington DC: 202-225-0453
- Ogden: 801-625-0107
- Brigham City: 435-734-2270
- Salt Lake City: 801-532-3244
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd District)
- Washington DC: 202-225-3011
- Salt Lake City: 801-486-1236
- St. George: 801-627-0880
- Price: 435-636-3722
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT 3rd District)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)