Apologies for no excerpt…reposted this from my phone. Well worth the clicky-linky though.
So, another shooting, and another hysterical rash of calls for increased [or ‘universal’] background checks.
We as a nation, will never actually address the root problem, will we? We are cultivating a self-centered, disposable, drive-by society, where Maslow’s hierarchy has been condensed into an on-demand, social media-ization framework.
Intelligent people could see that recipe for disaster from the start.
Blaming these events on the tool used or rhetoric by one’s politician of choice for convenient scapegoating, ignores the root of the problem. The root that people writ large don’t want to confront…..that we’ve done this to ourselves.
Now….on to background checks: All Citizens [even small ‘c’ citizens] should be able to agree that legislation should be reasoned, fair and enforceable…no? I have asked gun control radicals and ignorant sheep alike, for years….tell me what the enforcement mechanism is for ‘universal background checks‘.
If UBC is legislated, how will the State know if I sell a firearm to a friend/neighbor/acquaintance/stranger…or even knowingly to a criminal? How will UBC be enforced?
No answer? Then we should agree that this legislation is a waste of time and effort….and will be yet another gun law that goes largely unenforced.
“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. … When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say ‘Heil’ to him, nor will they call him ‘Führer’ or ‘Duce’. But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of ‘O.K., Chief! Fix it like you wanna, Chief! Oh Kaaaay!'” – American journalist and radio broadcaster Dorothy Thompson
[mass-murdering dictator]…..Chariman Kim has a great and beautiful vision for his country, and only the United States, with me as President, can make that vision come true.
Not much to say after that, except….wow…..
A snippet from an excellent writer, who should be on your blogroll if he isn’t already – Bayou Renaissance Man. Sage words for the increasing legion of perpetually offended…..
I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish about life, the universe and everything (including sexuality). As long as they keep it to themselves, it’s their business. I’m not going to foist my opinions and beliefs upon them, and I won’t allow them to foist theirs onto me. On the other hand, I’m not prepared to be told that my outlook on life is somehow “oppressing” them because it disagrees with theirs. It doesn’t have to. I have as much freedom of choice as they do. To legislatively force tolerance and acceptance of views that are anathema to my own isn’t right or just – it’s oppression under another name. By all means, legislate against unfair, coercive discrimination; but don’t legislate for unquestioning acceptance and approval. That’s far too much of the camel inside society’s tent!
The latest Trump-inspired drama [because apparently we needed more of that….] revitalizes my fascination with empty sloganeering, and what impact it’s authors think they’re going to have by trafficking in it.
As rational beings [speaking generally], we would know and understand that we can’t see into another’s heart or mind….but only divine their positions through their words and actions. We also [when similarly rational] would understand that filtering another’s words and actions through our own biases, dilutes the former; and we irrationally tend to project our our own metrics or definitions on another’s position….because it appeals to our emotional self.
The irony of “love it or leave it” is lost upon any who use it as intellectual currency, but had been in vocal opposition to the manner in which our nation has been administered in the past.
Likewise, the overused crutch of “politically correct” is so immeasurable and undefinable, since it occurs across the spectrum, that it is rendered vapid to all but the mouth-breathing, slack-jawed among us. The political Right stating that someone doesn’t love America…is as absurd as one on the political Left stating that Conservatives hate [insert label of choice here].
What exactly is the point of expending so much energy, not on policy and reason-driven argumentation……but on shallow, empty sloganeering to a demographic that it will already appeal to?
I get it, many are paid, and paid well, to preach the benefits of this snake oil…..but all we end up with is a more dumbed down electorate, turning the awesomely awful movie Idiocracy, into a prophesy.
It’s a long-ish article, hosted on ZeroHedge, so the salient point is reposted below. In an era where most Americans exist in a bubble of their own construction, trafficking in memes as political discourse, wallowing in hypocrisy, and in some camps – chanting and bellowing about how free we are…..the article is a good exercise in introspection. Which is akin to the plague for most……
It is not the proper role of government to inspect food; fight poverty; subsidize or give grants to any individual, business, occupation, or organization; create jobs; level the playing field; explore space; feed anyone; vaccinate anyone; rectify income equality; maintain a safety net; help the disabled and disadvantaged; regulate commerce; establish CAFE standards; fight discrimination; provide disaster relief; mitigate climate change; stamp out vice; have a retirement program; or provide public assistance. Government should be prohibited from intervening in, regulating, or controlling peaceful activity. And government should never punish individuals or businesses for engaging in entirely peaceful, voluntary, and consensual actions that do not aggress against the person or property of others. Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in 1801, described thus the sum of good government: “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”
The rest of the article is worth your time.
Although I don’t agree with the LP running a candidate for POTUS [I don’t think the expenditure is worth the reward at this stage; we need a more solid local and State base], this is a fascinating question for Libertarians to ponder this coming electoral cycle….when, to borrow from South Park – the major party race will be between a giant douche and a turd.
Reposted in it’s entirety, from Caffeinated Thoughts:
U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich., declared his independence from the GOP on July Fourth in an op-ed in USA Today. He joins a lot of Americans in the ranks of the politically homeless. While Amash didn’t vote for Trump and has often been critical of the administration, like many of us who’ve left in recent years, the reason for leaving goes beyond problems with the President:
These are consequences of a mind-set among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. Instead of acting as an independent branch of government and serving as a check on the executive branch, congressional leaders of both parties expect the House and Senate to act in obedience or opposition to the president and their colleagues on a partisan basis…
With little genuine debate on policy happening in Congress, party leaders distract and divide the public by exploiting wedge issues and waging pointless messaging wars. These strategies fuel mistrust and anger, leading millions of people to take to social media to express contempt for their political opponents, with the media magnifying the most extreme voices. This all combines to reinforce the us-vs.-them, party-first mind-set of government officials.
Amash sees two parties ripping the country apart and is done playing the game While he plans to run as an Independent for his current seat in Congress, Michigan law makes this a challenge as the state allows straight-ticket voting, which serves as an impediment to any Independent candidate, even an incumbent.
For many, his bold stroke stance signals a presidential run and the Libertarian party nomination would seem to be a good fit for the libertarian-leaning Michigan Congressman.
The greatest thing the Libertarian Party could offer Amash is ballot access. They’re experts at clearing the hurdles by the major parties as they’re the only third party to get their nominee on all 50 states ballots in 2016. They’ve had ballot access on at least forty-five state ballots and the District of Columbia in every Presidential election this century.
If Amash were the Libertarian nominee in 2020, he’d be doing a service in giving voters a choice in a race between a corrupt President and what will likely be a radical far-left nominee from the Democrats. However, if Amash is looking for long-term solutions to America’s problems or to break the hold of the major parties, the Libertarians are a poor option.
If Amash is unhappy with the wedge issues the major parties use, I doubt he’d be thrilled with the fringe issues that take inordinate debate and focus from the Libertarian Party members including advocacy for the repeal of all drug laws (not just those related to marijuana) and the legalization of prostitution in every community in this country. Don’t look to Libertarians for sensible tax reform to address real-world problems as Libertarians declareall taxation to be theft.
Not only do Libertarians take fringe positions, but the party is often embarrassed by the fringe actors who rise to prominence. In 2016, facing the prospect of the awful election choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, news focused on the Libertarian Party National Convention. With a former two-term Governor running as their likely nominee were the Libertarians ready for prime time?
Part of the answer came from James Weeks, a candidate for National Chairman of the Libertarian Party, who did a striptease on stage down to his underwear. To be clear, Weeks would later be expelled from the party for this stunt. However, he had been nominated for the U.S. House in 2014 by the Libertarians and was also their nominee for County Sheriff at the time of his uninvited burlesque show. The key question is not what the Libertarians did about Weeks, but how Weeks attained enough prominence to end up on their national convention stage in the first place.
If you look at the sheer number of votes that the Libertarian Party garners, it seems that among the hundreds of thousands who cast votes for their candidates, there must be many people more suitable for leadership than Mr. Weeks or a large number of Libertarian candidates who lack the political skills or personability required for political campaigns.
I believe the reason you have so few good Libertarians candidates for office is that most Libertarians have concluded that there’s no chance of actually winning an election outside of a few local elections and an occasional state legislative race. Running for office is a grueling task and most people aren’t going to undertake a serious campaign just to make a point.
If, like Amash, you believe that the major parties need to be challenged, why would you turn to a party that’s been around for 45 years and failed to come close to being competitive? In a way, having minor non-competitive third parties is part of the two-party system. The Libertarians have functioned much like independent baseball leagues such as the Nothern League of the 1990s. The Nothern League became a destination for down on their luck baseball players no major league team would touch in order to get playing time for a chance to get back to the big league.
Similarly, the Libertarian Party has become a refuge for former major party politicos. If Amash becomes the Libertarian nominee, the LP will have nominated an ex-Republican officeholder for president in four straight elections.
One should note that this is two-way traffic. Many of these same politicians jump back to their old party as Ron Paul did after he was the party’s 1988 nominee. Both members of the Libertarian’s 2008 ticket and 2016 Vice-Presidential nominee William Weld are back with the Republicans. If Libertarians expect anyone to commit to their party, it would be nice if the people they made their national standard-bearers would do so.
As I said, if Amash runs for President as a Libertarian, it would solve a problem in 2020. Solving the real problems Amash has identified is beyond the LIbertarian Party’s grasp. If Amash helps start a new political party that can appeal to a broad-based coalition, it’ll be a far greater service than becoming yet another former Republican to carry the losing Libertarian banner.
Truer words ne’er spoken…..
No matter if it’s former POTUS or current POTUS…..when a political hack lies, they’re either stupid…..or they think you’re stupid.
Obama, May 30: Well, I’ve said this before. The most difficult day that I’ve had was the day that there was a shooting in a school, where 20 small children were shot, as well as some teachers, and you know, my daughters were only a little bit older than these young children that had been shot and I had to go and comfort the parents. And some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, any time whether or not (applause) you know, without much, if any, regulation. They can buy it over the internet. They can buy machine guns.