Hating the haters

My choice has been made – I will be voting in California in November.

I don’t know that I will cast a vote in the presidential election. If I do, it will be only because I despise John McCain and not because I believe in anyone else. Sad, but true. But the reason I will bother with the whole rigmarole of absentee voting is so that those bigoted homophobic motherfuckers won’t be able to pass their bigoted homophobic proposition to ban gay marriage in California’s constitution.

Just yesterday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s law against same-sex marriage and declared that registered partnerships are not good enough.

“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state’s size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

yahoo/AP

One of the precedents cited was the California Supreme Court’s 1948 ruling that overturned the ban on interracial marriages.

The decision on same-sex marriage should be a happy ending and we should all rejoice that any couple who are lucky enough to find that kind of love can enshrine it in any way they want. We should all look forward to being invited to gay weddings where the décor and flowers, etc will all be in immaculate taste.

But instead, enter the small-minded, holier-than-thou, overly religious, freedom-loathing, malignant bigots that want us all to live based on their twisted code of intolerance and hatred. I really wish it were possible to convince them that they don’t have the right to tell other people how to live and that if there were a god, s/he would not be on their side.

If I were on the Supreme Court…

The fundamental issue being debated in the Supreme Court today is whether the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was actually meant to protect an individual’s right to possess guns.

There are of course all kinds of arguments and statistics and rationale that have been bandied about on both sides of the issue. Even Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have submitted an amicus brief.

But there is no precedent for this case currently before the Supreme Court and it therefore has to come down to the sitting justices’ interpretation of what the framers actually intended.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From the perspective of language, it seems to me that the inclusion of an “and” could have precluded any argument.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The omission of the “and”, however, does not prove anything. In fact that non essential “and” may have been left out only because the sentence flows better without it.

I either read or heard an argument the other day that had been put forward by a historical linguist. He said that to “bear Arms” clearly has to refer to a militia, as that was an idiom for being a soldier (or something like that). However in the bit that was quoted, he never mentioned what “to keep…Arms” might mean.

There are other ways in which a good editor could have clarified the 2^nd Amendment. For example:

As a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

I am an editor and I could play with that sentence all day, but it would never tell us what the framers had intended. To get an idea of intention, we have to look elsewhere. We have to understand the politics of the time, we have to understand history, and we should look at other things that the framers said and wrote.

James Madison is considered the author of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution). He adapted the Bill of Rights from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which had been drafted by George Mason in 1776. One of George Mason’s sources had been the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Even the English Bill of Rights declares that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”.

James Madison had initially been on the side that argued against a Bill of Rights, the danger being that if only certain rights were enshrined, then that would put all other of the natural rights of man at risk. A Bill of Rights would also assume that the government had powers that it had never in reality been granted.

I leave you now with a few quotes to help you decide what the framers really thought.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the People’s Liberty’s Teeth. – George Washington

From our own correspondent

 

kd flew back to The Amerika last Friday to spend 3 weeks with her family and friends in Central and Northern California. I have to specify that because people from Upper California are to Lower California as Canadians are to The Amerika. Meaning that god forbid you should make the mistake of thinking they might be from south of the dividing line.

Although I shouldn’t pick only on the Canucks. Even Aussies and Kiwis are sewing their national flags onto their backpacks and bags these days – looks like no one at all wants to be mistaken for someone from The Amerika. They’re probably afraid they’ll get beat up. Well, you all look like twats with your flags, but that is not what I want to rant about today.

Instead, I would like to share an email I got from kd:

My favorite quote from the Modesto Bee, 17.12.2007:

“There is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that cannot get television,”

said Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, talking about the impending change from analog to digital tv.

I realise I am seeing that quote out of context, but what the fuck.

How about, “there is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that cannot count on his sacred Constitutional rights”

or “there is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that just wants Congress to stand up to the president and end the fucking war in Iraq”

or “there is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that has just lost her house because of irresponsible lending practices”

or “there is no anger that comes close to the anger of an American that is having fundamentalist religion shoved down her throat everywhere she goes”

or – fill in your own favourite anger-inducing issue.

Thanks, kd. And have a great time in The Amerika.

Pakistan today, The Amerika tomorrow

 

I am not saying that it is imminent, or indeed that it is going to happen at all. I am saying, however, that we need to be aware that it is possible. And, most importantly, that the legislation that would make martial law legal in The Amerika is already in place.

I wrote about Aaron Russo’s film, America: Freedom to Fascism, in August 2006. In that post, I included the film’s sample list of executive orders. As I trust no one, I had checked to make sure Russo wasn’t full of shit. I found that his list was correct – all of the executive orders are real.

President Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law and suspend habeas corpus. This gives him dictatorial power over the people…with no checks and balances.

All of the following orders were in place long before Bush took office.

Executive Order #11921 – provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and Congress cannot review the action for six months – signed by Gerald R. Ford, 11 June 1976.

Executive Order #10990 – allows the government to take over all modes of transportation – signed by John F. Kennedy, 2 February 1962.

Executive Order #10995 – allows the government to seize and control the communications media – signed by John F. Kennedy, 16 February 1962.

Executive Order #10997 – allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals – signed by John F. Kennedy, 16 February 1962.

Executive Order #10998 – allows the government to take over all food resources and farms – signed by John F. Kennedy, 16 February 1962.

Executive Order #11002 – Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons – signed by John F. Kennedy, 16 February 1962.

Executive Order #11000 – allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision – signed by John F. Kennedy, 16 February 1962.

The Huffington Post yesterday published a list of some of the rights that have been suspended in Pakistan:

 

• Protection of life and liberty.
• The right to free movement.
• The right of detainees to be informed of their offence and given access to lawyers.
• Protection of property rights.
• The right to assemble in public.
• The right to free speech.
• Equal rights for all citizens before law and equal legal protection.
• Media coverage of suicide bombings and militant activity is curtailed by new rules. Broadcasters also face a three-year jail term if they “ridicule” members of the government or armed forces.

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to review all of Bush’s executive orders to see exactly what powers he has already claimed, but he has signed literally hundreds and I already have a full-time job.

 

And in addition to the executive branch usurping powers, the legislative branch has happily handed additional powers to the president. As an example, Public Law 109-364, the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (HR 5122), which was signed into law on 17 October 2006. The Act gives the president the power to declare a public emergency and station troops anywhere in the Amerika and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Does anyone remember the Posse Comitatus Act?

 

And don’t forget another consequence of Pakistan’s state of emergency – the elections that were planned for January 2008 will be postponed until there is no longer a state of emergency. General Musharraf will therefore remain in power until further notice.

 

George W Bush – president for life. Has an interesting ring to it, doesn’t it?

In support of Ron Paul

 

Peter Max: Liberty

I have been a Ron Paul supporter since before most people were aware there was a Ron Paul. That might sound arrogant but, to be fair, Ron Paul has only entered the cognizance of most Americans within the last few months. I was just lucky to have friends from the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist camps who introduced me to Ron Paul a couple of years ago.

Ron Paul is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president of the US for the 2008 elections. I could start my argument by saying either that he is not really a Republican or that he is the only real Republican in the running. You could look at it either way. Ron Paul’s yardstick is the US Constitution and his record as a congressman has proved his adherence to his principles. I first quoted Ron Paul on the Real ID Act of 2005 here, I wrote about him more extensively here, and I posted a video and discussed him with Gavin (and had an argument with my brother) here.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but I agree with him on ending the war in Iraq, not starting a war with Iran, the right to bear arms, property rights, fiscal policy, and abolishing the income tax, amongst other things. I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul’s anti-choice stance, which I think is dangerous to women and personal freedom. Even so, I believe that Ron Paul is a positive force – the only positive force – at that level of politics in the US.

The Ron Paul campaign is in the midst of an internet-based fundraising drive. Today I put my money where my mouth is and made a campaign donation. If you are a US citizen and you value your freedom, you might think about doing the same.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Overload

 

Just after I had returned from France, two different friends sent me emails with links to political news stories – both of which have enraged me. I have not been able to write about them because I have had no idea where to start. But here goes.

Darth Cheney

I hope that many of you have already seen the 4-part story that was in the Washington Post. It starts here. I have not yet read the whole thing – it’s very long. What I have read thus far is basically confirmation that Cheney has acted way beyond his powers as vice-president, and has even tricked the “president” into signing orders by allowing him to think that they have already been through all the proper channels and that other advisers have seen them. Several other people are implicated, and others are portrayed as being innocently outside the Cheney cabal. I am not going to attempt to summarise. As I said, I haven’t even read the whole thing yet. It has been difficult because I already loathe Cheney.

I checked the Constitution to see if a vice-president is impeachable on his own. He is.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

– Article 2, Section 4

And apparently the whole process can be very simple and quick, as shown here. It really is time to impeach Cheney.

** Update ** Crooks & Liars is also calling for Cheney’s impeachment.

Inform on your neighbour

This story seems to be less known. I therefore assume that it has not been published in the mainstream media.

The FBI have gone into academia to cow students, researchers and professors into reporting on their colleagues and peers. It seems to be a pilot project focusing on well-known research universities such as MIT. The FBI has provided Defense Department guidelines on what behaviours may be signs that one of your colleagues has been, or is preparing to, pass on classified or sensitive information. The guidelines will assure you that by reporting on your colleagues to the authorities, you will actually be doing your colleagues a favour. Saving them from themselves, as it were.

Again, I am not going to summarise the articles I read; they are here and here.

This attitude of ‘suspect everyone and narc on your peers’ reminds me of two things: McCarthyism in the US, and communism over here. We could soon all be questioned about why we have foreign friends, why we speak other languages, why we are working late, why we are curious about other people’s research, or, in fact, anything at all.

Hello, totalitarianism.

* Thanks to Moscow Mike and Monkey for the initial links. And an extra thanks to Monkey for you-know-what.

Hope for The Amerika

Watch this video!

If Ron Paul ever becomes president, I might even consider moving back to The Amerika.

Bye-bye rights and freedoms

This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom. – “President” George W. “I’m a fucking moron” Bush

This bill brings us closer to a surveillance society with serious privacy issues and a loss of administrative accountability. – Max

The bill, S. 1348, the Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, is currently being debated in the upper house of Congress. Section 302 of the bill addresses “employment verification”, which will affect not only immigrants, but everyone who works in The New Amerika, whether non-citizen or citizen.

I vaguely remember having to prove that I was eligible to work in The Amerika whenever I went for a new job. I think I had to fill out a federal form (I-9), and show my driving licence as ID and my social security card to show I had the right to work. Fair enough. That process will remain the same, except that “for US citizens, documents that meet both identification and employment authorization will now only include US passports, a new biometric tamper-resistant, machine-readable passport, a REAL ID compliant driver’s license.” And employers will now be required to retain copies of the presented documents.

Then comes the more ominous aspect: the Electronic Employment Verification System (EEVS), which is already administered jointly in pilot form by the Department of Fatherland Security and the Social Security Administration. Under EEVS, the personal information handed over to the employer by every single employee, new or current, will be entered into a database for verification. All of that may or may not work. Apparently the pilot program, which is on a relatively small scale, has a lot of bugs. One of the biggest worries is that the system will produce a list similar to the ‘no-fly’ list, and some of us will be mistakenly and unfairly blackballed from working.

Fatherland Security will receive all of the data for verification, including our social security numbers, and will not be required to delete the information from their systems after the verification process has been completed. Fatherland Security, and its contractors, will also have access to confidential taxpayer information from the IRS’ databases. Even if you are not a paranoid person that wants the government to know as little as possible about you, you could still be a victim of identity theft or other fraud. The government’s databases are notoriously insecure.

The bill also prohibits any meaningful judicial review, which means that Fatherland Security, or whatever other authority is involved, will not be held accountable for unlawful acts. The principle of judicial review has existed since Dr. Bonham’s Case of 1610, and has been essential in American constitutional law. The purpose of judicial review is to let the courts intervene if a public body has made an error of law. Without judicial review, we will be powerless to correct wrongful decisions, whether made purposefully or mistakenly, by Fatherland Security.

Both Republicans and Democrats are backing the bill.

CNET News
ACLU
Greg Siskind’s summary of the bill

Thanks, Monkey.

The Christian Taliban in The New Amerika

 

Last week I wrote about Oriana Fallaci’s view of the “Reverse Crusade” – the Muslim invasion of Europe. But I hate getting caught looking in the wrong direction so today’s topic is the Christian Taliban of The New Amerika.

This morning I read an article called “The Crusaders” by Robert Koehler. The article contains a strong and disturbing quote from Mikey Weinstein: The Christian Taliban is running the Department of Defense.

Weinstein is the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which works to ensure that those serving in the US armed forces do not have their constitutional right to religious freedom whipped out from under them.

Mikey Weinstein published a book last year, so I went to amazon to look at it. With God on Our Side is an exposé of the fundamentalist Christian zealotry that has permeated the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. It got good reviews and I am going to read it.

I have a friend in the US Air Force, he is a major and a pilot and a Jew. I have never asked him about being a Jew in the air force or at the academy, but I have talked to my friend who is his wife. For three years in Germany, Leah’s only close friends were other military wives. They were all nice women, but they were also all Christian – the kind that organise their own Bible study twice a week. And Leah continually had to tell them to fuck off because they really really wanted her to join them.

When I was down in Vyškov, teaching at the Czech military university, an American astronaut came to speak and ended up trying to sell Jesus to an audience full of atheist soldiers who had no idea what he was on about. It was so wrong and out of place that it literally made me sick – I barfed into the sink in my office just after.

Back to amazon… you know how when you look at a book, they tell you what other books you might want to browse through. I got a list of titles that turned my blood to ice water:

• Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg
• American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges
• Piety & Politics: The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom by Barry W. Lynn

This is pretty serious stuff. We are currently at war because God told the pяezident to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Creationism is being taught in schools all over The New Amerika. Politicians have declared that the United States was founded as a Christian nation (which it was not). Women are continuously being threatened with the loss of our freedom of choice and the ownership of our own bodies. Atheists are feared and reviled. And the witch burnings are sure to start any day now.

How did we get here? I would like to write next about what we need to do to fix things, but I’m afraid that I don’t know. Reason seems to have fled and we really are stuck in an age of mumbo-jumbo. I guess I’ll just stay over here where it’s relatively safe and watch and wait.

 

 

Blow it out your arse, Arianna

 

Why do so many people think that guns are bad? People seem to jump to conclusions without doing any research, without looking at the statistics, and without talking to people who might know better.

Yes, I guess I am obsessed. Today’s post is inspired by several things, the last of which was just now looking at the Huffington Post (which annoys me more and more every time I look at it) and reading Arianna Huffington’s bash of Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay, you see, suggested that if Virginia Tech had not been a gun free zone, someone might have stopped Cho Seung-Hui before he was able to murder so many people.

Sarcastic Arianna refers to “Mutually Assured Destruction Goes to College. Animal House meets Death Wish. Shootout at the O.K. Dorm.” Ha ha ha – but actually, not at all funny. It makes me wonder if Arianna has ever looked at any of the research on guns and gun control, or if she just likes vilifying people who take the 2^nd Amendment seriously.

I found some very interesting research last week – an article on the relationship between gun control and genocide, a University of Chicago study on gun control, and a survey of the police in San Diego.

Gun control and genocide – an article by Jay Simkin

I had never known, for example, that Turkey had a gun control law in effect when over 1 million Armenians were massacred between 1915 and 1917. The Soviet Union enacted a gun control law in 1929, and over the next 20 years, Stalin’s purges killed 20 million people. Other genocides noted in the article as all having occurred whilst gun control laws were in effect: Jews, gypsies and other victims of Nazi Germany, anti-communists in China, Mayans in Guatemala, Christians in Uganda, and the educated class in Cambodia.

I really don’t know if there is a direct relationship, but it certainly bears looking into or at least thinking about. Anyway, I put that article first because it is the weakest of my three arguments.

The abstract from the University of Chicago Gun Control Study

“Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect in the highest crime counties. Higher arrest and conviction rates consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction, imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”

I think it speaks for itself.

San Diego Police survey

The survey was done in 1997 and these are the actual questions that were asked. There is a statement on the page where I saw this survey that these results are similar to those in other police surveys all over the US for over 20 years.

1. Do you support an assault weapons ban? NO – 82.1%

2. Do you support a limitation on magazine capacity? NO – 82.2%

3. Do you support a law-abiding private citizen’s right to carry a concealed weapon? YES – 84.9%

4. Do you believe that armed, law-abiding citizens are a threat to you as a police officer? NO – 92.1%

5. Have recent gun laws (weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and increased waiting periods) reduced violent crime in your area? NO – 94.2%

6. Would you support a point of sale background check (instant check) for the purchase of a firearm? YES – 92.1%

7. Does gun ownership by private citizens increase public safety? YES – 87.1%

8. Do you believe the criminal justice system needs streamlining and reform? YES – 99.2%

9. Do you believe in the death penalty? YES – 99.2%

10. Do you believe that restrictive gun laws will reduce violent crime? NO – 92.1%

11. Do you believe that gun buy-back or turn-in programs take guns out of the hands of criminals? NO – 98.5%

12. Do you believe that misuse of a firearm in a crime should result in stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargaining? YES – 95.6%

And now I have to ask myself whether I would like to believe a whining (and annoying) columnist on the one side, or the police – who might know a bit more about the topic, and a statistically sound study from a top-notch university on the other side. To be honest, the genocide study comes from Guns & Ammo magazine, so I am willing to leave that one out of the argument.

But again, the bottom line is who I am going to trust to protect me when I need protection. Hmm, let me think – that would be me.

I am not even sure that there is an argument for background checks. It didn’t stop Cho Seung-Hui and he was a certified nutter. I believe that criminals will always be able to get guns. They don’t abide by the law, which is what makes them criminals. Which means that I need to be able to get guns too. And legally – because I am not a criminal.

The article, study and survey discussed above are all here. You will also find some other nice Second Amendment links.