February 11, 2014
December 18, 2013
I’m seeing this article hit Facebook, repeatedly, with people [allegedly liberals] getting all enraged about it.
It’s about police in Colorado refusing to spend their time enforcing a “take away their guns” policy.
Here’s the article:
Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control [New York Times]
Here are some of the comments I have seen:
“They aren’t fit to hold the office of sheriff. AND they are, for the most part, cessessionists.”
“And here I thought they were to uphold the laws, not just the ones they like!”
“The one good thing is that they are “outing” themselves and, in their ignorance, they think everyone is onboard with them and their ideas. This, of course, is not so and brings them media attention and scrutiny. That tactic has already brought several of these types down.”
In the article, Sheriff John Cooke is pointing out it is impossible to tell whether identical gun magazines were purchased pre-law, or post-law. Which is a valid point. Apparently purchase, sale, and ownership of the magazines is only illegal from the point of the law going into effect — ownership of magazines purchased pre-law going into effect is not illegal.
Gun control advocates who are hard core appear to think law enforcement should spend its time storming gun owners’ homes searching their residences and confiscating legally purchased gun magazines just to be sure. Wow. My liberal brethren. Really?
That’s not “liberal,” btw. That’s “Nazi.” I hope you know that.
*Cue hate mail.
My other, and bigger concern, is, what happened to the law of “conscience”?
It used to be illegal for someone of color to drink out of a “white” drinking fountain. Would the same people going crazy yelling at law enforcement “it’s the law, just do it and don’t ask questions!” applaud, or deride, a police officer who refused to enforce the drinking fountain law?
It seems to me, lately, the question of conscience that should be allowed any officer of the law, according to both the “conservative” and “liberal” camps currently screaming “if I want it just do it, don’t ask fucking questions no conscience required!,” appears to not be a concern.
“If you are doing what I want, your conscience should not come into play.”
“If you are doing what I do not want, your conscience should come into play.”
Not to bring Hitler into the equation, but I am going too, How many people are still enraged the people taking orders in Nazi Germany said, “I was just doing my job”?
The Hitler guys were “enforcing the law.”
[Law, you know, is an arbitrary system made up by people. Yeah, sometimes we do our best. Sometimes we really seriously don't. It depends who is making the laws.]
Everyone post-Hitler seems pretty agreed, the Hitler employees should have seriously questioned orders and engaged their own free will and conscience.
And yet here we are today, with police saying, “That’s wrong, I won’t do it,” and —
Self professed fucking liberals, yes, fucking liberals! [I get to say that because I grew up a "liberal" and am so betrayed by the whole concept I can't even begin to stutter out how fucked up this is] screaming at them, “It’s not your job to think, it’s your job to do as you’re told!”
Jesus Christ. Seriously?
You really want to be the asshole saying, “Do the fucking law as written, be an automaton for the state, don’t engage your conscience”?
That’s backing up every Nazi who ever hit a twelve year old kid in the head with a rifle butt.
This is a question of conscience, and whether or not police should enforce all laws, regardless of what those laws are, acting as automatons of the state, or should at times question a law and whether or not that law is correct and/or should be enforced.
I personally am relieved to see some police officers engaging their consciences and thinking about and questioning the rules handed down to them from on high and whether or not as officers of the “law” in a more moral sense, they can or should in good conscience enforce those laws.
This same issue came up during the Occupy Wall Street protests when some law enforcement officers refused to beat and pepper spray peaceful protesters. Were those law enforcement officers entitled to make a moral decision about the orders they received, then, or should they have behaved as automatons of the state then too and beat and pepper sprayed teenage girls along with their gung ho less thoughtful companions?
And going back to Nazi Germany, should any of those guys have made a moral decision on their own? Or should they have just “followed orders”?
December 6, 2013
This comparison between auto insurance and health insurance.
The comparison of auto insurance to health insurance is ridiculous.
You have a choice to purchase a car or not purchase a car. A car is a material possession. One you cannot even legally operate until you reach a designated age close to reaching legal maturity.
Likewise, with homeowner’s insurance, you have a choice, purchase a house or not. And this usually only happens after achieving adulthood.
Birth is not a choice.
You are born into this world alive, an infant, incapable of refusing life and/or purchasing insurance for what is not, in the first place, a material possession.
Life is not a material possession. Life is a state of being. And you enter it without benefit of a choice in the matter, any choice in your health upon arrival, or the ability or wherewithal to insure either.
Stop equating life with auto ownership. It is a ridiculous comparison.
November 30, 2013
November 15, 2013
It’s kind of stupid. I’m not sure why anyone would follow up, say, I dunno, on a 2001 September attack in 20013 in November on a completely different day. Really? 12 years later? In a different month on a different day. Not that that is just bad marketing follow through. But, ultimately, completely stupid. Nobody waits 12 years to follow up. You are probably safe, Los Angeles. Unless your government wants to fuck with you. I’m pretty sure no terrorists are this marketing impaired. But the government? Pretty sure it is.
The internet warning says warnings are going out from Anonymous. People are talking. On one hand saying Anonymous is full of crap. On another hand saying, This is some government conspiracy to put info out there under the Anonymous handle to discredit Anonymous. And then there is the third hand, (nice to have three hands, right?), If Anonymous did just uncover and make public a 9-11 type attack, the fastest way to discredit Anonymous would be to just not do the attack.
Sucks to be you, Los Angeles, in the cross fire, in this discussion. Since, if you live in Los Angeles, this is not exactly an intellectual discussion, it is a question of whether or not you are going to get blown up tomorrow going into work.
I wonder sometimes how all of this turned into an “intellectual discussion.”
It’s not an intellectual discussion for me. I was born in Los Angeles. So were my parents. So were some of my grandparents. You’re not talking about, Oh I just happened to be there, when you talk about blowing up Los Angeles to me. You’re talking about blowing up my grandparents’ headstones.
What people are not saying —
Los Angeles has already been hit. It is an insidious hit, but it’s a hit. Japan blew up and is spewing radioactivity into the Pacific and the airstream that is hitting the West Coast of the U.S., every day, and there’s a dog pile of radioactive flotsam from the Japan tsunami wake washing up all along the West Coast.
No one’s even talking about that effect on Hawaii, which was in the direct path of the first wash, but people at some point will have to start talking when thousands of pounds of radioactive flotsam hits shores from Baja to Seattle.
Also you have to consider the Hudson Current, which runs north to south from Alaska to Mexico unless there is an El Nino in effect, and then runs backwards, from Mexico to Alaska. Which means even places that shouldn’t be in the path, like Alaska? Are going to get hit.
Once upon a time after 9-11 some students and I in a chat room were talking about, if 9-11 were on purpose and a little more organized and insidious?, what would the next hit be.
We mapped it out.
So far that map is pretty accurate. But we missed some stuff. We thought Seattle would go before Los Angeles. Seattle has a for shit sea wall, bad bridges, a lot of political misbehaving in terms of funds, and is the easiest physical infrastructure to take down after New Orleans. But —
We just were not imaginative enough.
We never imagined someone would take out the entire Pacific Rim by blowing up Japan.
June 26, 2013
November 6, 2012
Today I will vote for a man who will bring the troops home so young men stop coming home missing legs, arms, faces and life because they were defending foreign oil wells. Today I will vote for a man who will restore habeas corpus. Today I will vote for a man who will end the “war on drugs” that is such an abysmal failure going on 50% of the prison population today is non-violent offenders. Who…
will NOT mandate every American buy health insurance from corporations at triple rates because Wellpoint said that looks like an awesome plan and then wrote the bills to make it so. Who will not appoint Goldman Sachs heads of state to oversee banking regulations and will not appoint Monsanto officials to oversea food and health regulation. Who will not say “It’s complicated” every time a simple question is asked. Who is not backed by nuclear power to the extent he will be in Chile pimping solar power while Fukushima is melting because, hey, Exelon paid for the Chicago campaign. Today I will vote for the last man standing who might save this country. And 90% of my friends and family members and fellow Americans will not.
September 13, 2012
“Strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”
So that was a lie. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of Chris Hedges’ suit against Obama and NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], permanently blocking disputed provisions in the NDAA as unconstitutional. And Obama and friends immediately filed an appeal. Actually they filed some sort of appeal a while back, anticipating NDAA would be knocked down by the judge after her May stance which temporarily restrained the implementation of NDAA.
Here is the thing to think about. A US president is fighting tooth and nail for the legal right to throw US citizens into jail, for life, without charges or a trial.
What sick science fiction movie is this coming out of?
And why is anyone voting for a president who would want the power to or try to do that?
There is another guy, by the way, who was big on arresting citizens and throwing them into prisons without charges or trial. His name was Stalin.
August 29, 2012
I have been avoiding news and politics. One, I really hate politics, two, I am too emotionally involved in politics [yes, politics and me, it's like a bad boyfriend] — and three, I figured I did everything I could do for Ron Paul and now it was just a case of wait and see what happened at the Republican National Convention.
It wasn’t good.
Quoting a Minnesota Paul supporter, “They stole votes. They stole delegates. They refused to send buses for our delegates. [*Max note, when they did send buses, the buses got mysteriously lost for hours during important votes.] It’s a totalitarian process. This is not democracy.”
:::what happened at the republican national convention:::
So Ron Paul is out. He wasn’t even allowed to speak at the Republican convention unless he’d agree to have his speech written by the RNC and to publicly endorse Romney. [Bummer RNC. Ron Paul doesn't take dictation. Though his son does. Rand is one of yours I figure.]
That leaves one man standing who might bring the troops home, end the “war on drugs,” and start putting the Constitution back together: Gary Johnson.
I don’t know that much about Gary Johnson. I know what his campaign site says. He’s pro due process, anti nation building, internet friendly and anti SOPA/CISPA/et al/censorship, anti “drug war” — those are all good. He is kind of anti Medicare medical care which is not so good, but if he stops the damn wars and deployments and nation building, I’ll trade off on that. I was willing to do that with Ron Paul. He seems to be more localized control of education, but I haven’t yet sussed out in what way to interpret that. Bottom line. Bring the troops home, end the war on drugs, reinstate the Constitution and protect the internet is a fucking moonshot beyond what Obama or Romney are talking about.
Johnson’s got a crap campaign. The site is weak, the mission statement’s unclear. And the site and campaign are hanging on by trying to tuck into Ron Paul’s coattails. Unfortunate. But then —
Independents always do have crap campaigns, crap websites — they don’t have big money, they don’t get on TV. Only Democrats and Republicans get on TV and then only Democrat and Republican candidates networks like or can’t ignore — and the networks all have dogs in the race. That’s why Ron Paul went on the Republican ticket, it was the only way to get on stage and be heard.
Johnson hasn’t been fighting for decades to do the things that matter most to me like Ron Paul has, bring the troops home, end the war on drugs, protect and defend the Constitution — and more recently, protect the internet. And I am distrustful of political promises from newer younger politicians. Why wouldn’t I be? Obama was lying through his teeth. But —
Gary Johnson’s nomination pick for VP is one of my personal heroes:
Judge Gray has been fighting a long time to stop the war on drugs:
Votes more than likely won’t make any difference in this election. They haven’t for a while. Not while paper ballots are gone — or being dumped in Louisiana swamps or worse discounted for “chad” infractions” [seriously, chad infractions, Florida you so dick elections away, why?] and electronic voting machines rule the day and are manipulated with algorithms. Which everyone knows but no one is doing anything about.
And why would anyone do anything about that? The people in charge don’t want to do anything about boxes that can be manipulated. They are doing the manipulating.
There is no oversight on electronic voting machines. There are only a few companies, only one that programs, and it looks somewhat problematic how this all works. For example :::the landes report::: — you get that link because I am tired tonight, it’s hard to dig out the good links, and the fifty articles I have read on this that are stronger are buried beneath Google’s horrifying hundred page accruement of bad links so don’t get all excited it is not the New York Times, the New York Times, according to its editor, Arthur Brisbane, the New York Times doesn’t fact check any more [that would be "vigilante journalism --- according to Brisbane --- though when I was in school it was called just, um, you know, fucking journalism]. So now The New York Times just takes dictation from politicians. So think about your news sources. Maybe they aren’t as “legitimate” as you think.
But, anyway —
American citizens dutifully trudge to the polls and cast votes and the machines dutifully spit out a different result someone else programmed in. Someone’s benefitting from that. That someone is not the American people though. The American people keep thinking their votes count. I think that is called “cognitive dissonance.” But I will do it anyway. Better a cast vote that is manipulated than no cast vote at all. The only thing worse than being gagged by someone else is gagging yourself for them.
I know the arguments. The arguments will be fierce and ongoing and I will be besieged. “A vote for Johnson is a vote for [Obama/Romney, pick your "brand" candidate]!. Newsflash. One, I would rather throw away a vote than throw away my country. Two? Obama/Romney? They’re the same face on one politically corrupt machine taking this country to hell. And I’d rather be shot dead than vote for either one of them.
Take that to the bank that financed both of them.
where that art work comes from:
that is dovima with elephants by richard avedon