My view of the world

Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

I’m an atheist in that I don’t believe in God. The closest I can do is say I’m a deist. Some entity dropped a 900 bazillion ton marble of matter that blew up and made the stars and the planets. Then he went away to play with his other marbles. Or for that matter the Battlestar Galactica theory is right and we are 150K years down the line.

The other side of the coin is that, having grown up in the United States, I know that atheists are a small minority. There are the militant atheists that want total rejection of any religion anywhere in the public square. These are the ones who fight nativity scenes and similar items. But I, and probably the majority of atheists, just want to be left alone. I don’t mind the Roy B Costner’sof the world. (I used to be bothered by them much to my chagrin.) I’ve finally realized there is appropriate tilting at windmills.

The problem is the groups on the Right automatically assume atheism means hedonism. The reality is that most atheists are driven by rational thought, and at least a nominal moral code. They don’t support randomly killing people, spying on them for no reason, or slavery of any type. Some don’t support abortion, gay marriage, or out of wedlock sex. It isn’t because some ancient text says it’s wrong, they have there own reasons.

Then there are those of us that do support pro-choice and gay marriage.

Why am I pro-choice? Because I don’t think that killing even a large bunch of cells is murder. I do say that abortion should be limited to the first six months. If you can’t figure out whether you want to be a mother by six months the option is no longer in your hands because the fetus is nominally viable to live without you.

Why am I pro gay marriage? Because that is is a civil description as well as a religious description of a couple. The civil side affects taxes, inheritance, parenting, support of the partner in hospitals and other settings. There never be a demand for any church to recognize a civil marriage. And an individual church or sect can or cannot recognize a gay marriage as they see fit. If an individual state refuses to acknowledge it — that’s fine, but at the Federal level it is not equality.

Politically, I want a balanced budget and a small, limited, constitutional government. I’d also would like to be a part of the TEA Parties. But then you have someone on the religious right that insists there be a plank on gays or abortion. That is where the problem occurs. It’s not your business. It also isn’t an issue for the Federal government because it is not anywhere in it. (22)

From a John Boehner interview:

We have a serious problem. We’ve spent more money than what we’ve brought in for 55 of the last 60 years. There’s no business in America that can survive like that, no family in America that can survive like that. And that’s– a government can’t survive continuing to spend more than what we bring in. We have to address our long-term spending problem

Now, you are speaker of the House of Representatives. The House has the exclusive power the purse. The House has a Republican majority.

Why can’t you and your fellow compatriots write a freaking balanced budget and send it for passage.

When the Senate or the President refuses to pass or sign it tell them in clear terms “Fuck you! We are representing the free citizens of the United States.”

Don’t back down, don’t compromise. The United States Constitution says:

Section 7: Bills Clause 1: Bills of revenue

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Tell the Senate they have no choice but to concur, now, or when they are voted out of office.

(7)

From a post by the Advice Goddess:

The ROI investigation does include intangibles, such the inspiration available to a free people, but the analysis has to start with whether x measure will achieve y result for cost z. — Radwaste at June 10, 2013 2:02 PM

You are also an educated fellow. The problem is that you are looking at this as the progressive framework dictates; not as a free American with rights dictated by an outside power.

You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The federal government was granted power from the people to do certain things. They were also limited from certain things that they can’t do as dictated by the Bill of Rights. That they have overstepped the bounds is evident.

So phrasing the ROI on the collection of every single Americans phone call metadata, email, bank records, IRS records without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause does not make anyone safer.

If it did, there would not have been terrorist event or unsolved murder since 2001 within the United States.

Then add in that in places like Maryland the government is allowed to record every word you say. But as a private citizen you can’t record the LEO’s. How is that a balance to the citizen? (8)

I’m pretty much an atheist. But I have gotten to the point that as long as you aren’t preaching at me, trying to convert me or trying to make laws based on religion, I pretty much ignore you and allow you to believe as you see fit.

From The Black Sphere:

A high school valedictorian from Pickens County, South Carolina, became that light as he stood in defiance of those seeking to shut down freedom of religion and expression. Despite the ACLU demands to remove all references to faith and religion in graduation ceremonies statewide, Roy Costner IV refused to allow his testimony of God’s faithfulness to be suppressed.

To the amazement of his graduating class, faculty and parents, Costner stood before the podium and defiantly ripped up his state sanctioned speech. He then spoke openly about his faith in Jesus Christ:

This is the full speech from beginning to end:

(11)

This guy needs all the support you can give.

(9)

I’d vote for her as Pres or VP today and tomorrow.
(8)

From 10News in Mordor on the Potomac:

The staff of the National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that the blood alcohol content, or BAC, be lowered from .08 percent to .05 percent. In Colorado, drivers can already be cited for driving while ability impaired (DWAI) if they have a BAC of .05 percent.

The aim is to cut the nearly 10,000 deaths every year related to alcohol impaired driving.

Most of the industrialized world already has the lower standard. “It will happen,” says Robert Molloy of the NTSB. “We are behind the world.”

In addition to lowering the standard, the staff is asking that penalties for first and repeat offenders be increased. NTSB staff would also like to see more technology used including a “sniffing flashlight” used by police officers which can detect alcohol odors. There is also a call to accelerate research into cars which can detect if the driver has been drinking and not allow the car to be started.

The staff report suggests that if the BAC standard is lowered, between 500 and 800 lives could be saved every year. Driving under the influence is responsible for nearly a third of all crash fatalities in the U.S. The NTSB suggests those deaths and the 170,000 yearly injuries add up to a cost of $66 billion every year.

I grew up at the lower edge of the DUI and drinking age requirements. Most people don’t realize that the reason that the voting age is 18 because one of the mottoes in the hippies/draft dodgers of the Vietnam era was “Old enough to serve, old enough to vote.” So that is why the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was implemented.

Back when, I could legally drink on an airplane because some states were still 18 and others were 21 to drink. Then there was Colorado — they had 2.1 beer under 21 and full beer over 21. That applied for a few years. Texas raised the drinking age every year on January 1 until they got to 21. My birthday is in October. So I couldn’t drink legally for three months for a few years. I was also in the USAF when they changed the rules for on-base establishments that sold alcohol to follow the state’s age rules.

But back then if you were caught drinking and driving your penalty could be anything from the cops driving you home to one or more nights in jail.

Here’s a sort of whiplash to this:

The way that the original .10 DUI standard was imposed is the Department of Transportation (DOT) withheld highway funds from the states just as they did with the 55 MPH standard. Then the NTSB decided the .08 standard was better. The DOT blackmailed the states again.

So now the NTSB is saying .05. Even one of my local stations interviewing LEO types is saying the road side tests won’t work anymore.

NTSB: Lower drunk limit for drivers

So essentially even the stop would be illegal.

The real reason for this post is my question that they carefully have avoided. They avoided it in the .10 to .08 debate. And they are avoiding it now. The question is how many people have been convicted of accidents, deaths, etc. at a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) between .081 and .999? How about a BAC between .051 and .079?

I’m not asking how many people have been caught driving at those levels and have been convicted of DUI or similar charges. I’m asking how many have actually caused damage? Until you get that distinction you are being snookered by politicians and bureaucrats. Most people can have two beers and get to a .06.

I am not excusing anyone that drinks a six-pack and then drives. They probably deserve more than what they get. My argument is that when you get to a point that you are so subservient to the federal government that a drink can make you illegal to walk, you need to look at what is going on. (19)

The National Firearms Act (NFA) was enacted on June 26, 1934. It essentially banned fully automatic firearms, silencers (suppressor), sawed-off shotguns and other specialized firearms in those categories.

Then there was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. That stopped the introduction of any new fully automatic weapons that weren’t stamped prior to the enactment. So the price of a fully automatic weapon went from about $5-7K a piece to north of $20K. But the number of crimes committed with fully automatic weapons went from about zero per year to zero per year.

They didn’t change the laws on possession of a suppressor. The number of violent crimes involving suppressors really hasn’t changed that I have heard of; even with the advent of Google™ & YouTube™. There may be more poaching going on, but the deer population in my area doesn’t really show it.

Then there is the sawed-off shotguns. If you don’t know, the death of Randy Weaver’s family at Ruby Ridge was all started by Randy shortening the length of the shotguns’ barrels, at the FBI informant’s request, below the legal limit after they were paid for by the informants.

So what would really happen if the NFA 1934 and FOPA 1986 were to be repealed?

You would probably see the sale of fully auto weapons spike for a few years, but unless Congress threatened to restrict possession again, it would even out. I admit I’d rather have an M-16/M-4 over an AR-15. Most combat vet would also. They would also tell you they never went to full rock-n-roll unless they were wasting ammo. The modern M-16 has a 3 round burst selector. Three rounds per trigger pull. It gives an option to put semi-aimed rounds down range without thought.

The possession of suppressor, legally bought in stores, might go up. But if you’re legally carrying a concealed weapon adding an additional 3-6 inches makes it harder to conceal and doesn’t add anything anyway. If I’m going to have to pull and use my CCW, I don’t care who hears it. If I’m out poaching animals, I’m already doing something illegal anyway; and could already have an illegal suppressor I made at home. But most poaching is done by poor people trying to supplement their food supply. They would probably be let off by the judge anyway. Yes, some is trophy hunting, but the percentage is probably small.

As for short-barreled shotguns, all you need is a hacksaw and a Dremel™ type tool or a regular file set. As far as a shotgun, the pump shotgun with 5 rounds is a minimum of about 14 inches, plus the chamber and the pistol grip or about twenty inches. So a double-barreled shotgun could be taken to the 8-12 range. I’d rather have my semi-auto.

The point I’m trying to get to is that if I got a full-auto weapon, I’d probably take it out to some range and blow off a few magazines, then get down to the single round aimed firing. I might have 20K rounds instead of 5K with an AR-15. Might show off my skilled suppressed shooting. And 99% of the rest of the buyers would do the same.

Yes — we would have the gangs in Chicago shoot 22 in a night instead of 5. But considering that you can’t have a legally owned firearm in Chicago currently — “WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?”

Please let me know where I’m wrong? (28)

This is inspired by Amy Alkon’s (The Advice Goddess) post on the few missing hours before the Boston lock down.

I am now just so pissed off at the political attitude of “never let a crisis go to waste.”

On the day of the bombing, after the initial explosions, most of the private American citizens turned toward the strangers in their midst with the offer of at least comfort, if not actual aid, to the injured.

Then Lord & Taylor’s (privately owned) surveillance camera had the best fixed pictures of these two scumbags. That was handed over by the company to LEOs with no questions. The other private citizens also offered up the images and videos to LEOs to allow them the best chance to find the scumbags.

Once the scumbags were identified, they car jacked this guy, who had the guts to get away and alert authorities. Whether he left his cell phone behind on purpose, or accidentally, I still consider Danny a hero. He knew he was responsible for his own safety and security. That he left a trail to find the scumbags was fantastic.

So the LEOs track the scumbags down. The LEOs had a large firefight with the scumbags, but could only kill scumbag #1. Then the LEOs have a large “voluntary” lock down of a major metropolitan area.

Editor’s thoughts: If this had occurred in Dallas, or Oklahoma City, or just about any city not near the coasts, you could have probably had an armed group of citizens on every corner that would have stood behind the LEOs as they conducted the hard target search.

The surviving scumbag was in a boat a block and a half outside of the hard target search area. And the searches of homes was in violation of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. But there has been no backlash from that, even though there should be.

The hiding place of scumbag #2 was identified by a private citizen to LEOs.

And this all happened in a state with stiff gun control laws.

Now the fallout:
Several senators want to deform the constitution to prosecute the surviving scumbag as an enemy combatant, which will affect all of us in the long term. Any time the Federal government gets the opportunity to abuse it’s power, it will. Does anyone remember that the NDAA of 2011 authorizes rendition at the President’s whim. We have the scumbag dead to rights. No matter what happens he is going top spend the rest of his life in a cell. Whether it is foreshortened by a death penalty ruling or not is just a matter of what court he is convicted in. My argument is that if they can do that to a citizen caught for doing a terrorist act on U.S. soil, what can they do to you?

Boston and other major metropolitan are wanting to implement a “no sparrow may fall” surveillance systems. That includes NYC upgrading theirs because Times Square is a probable target. For that matter the The Times Square bombing as stopped when two street vendors discovered the car bomb. Not by the governments cameras that were already there. But again a private camera gave the LEOs the leads to capture him. But if a system like that were to work, why did a private citizen, albeit a Marine, have to respond to to a 10 year old with a gun.

Massachusetts has fairly strict gun laws and limits the possession of firearms without state licensure. Somehow the scumbags had firearms. So those who are law abiding owners need more restrictions

The left are wanting to implement further gun control because these criminal scumbags were illegally in possession of firearms. This is the same idea that universal background checks will stop gun violence. The Newtown shooter killed his mother and stole her guns. The criminal and insane aren’t going to stop because they have to fill out a 4733.

Then you have the heights of Bloombergia stupidity:
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Has to Change:

According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect citizens.

…

“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

He thoroughly ignores the facts that the first people responding, in all the situations above, were private citizens without a badge. I live in the middle of nowhere. There is no first responder within minutes unless I’m lucky. There is a firehouse about a mile away. It may have people in it about two hours a day. The total deputies on duty overnight is about ten for a 416 sq miles county. If I see one it is on a drive-by on a lucky night.

The nanny state is not the answer, no matter what he thinks.

I am not ready to shred the Constitution because a couple of scumbags figure out how to mix peroxide with a pressure cooker and make things go boom. (51)

This post is going to be in the form of an open letter to my congress critters.

Honorable <congress critter>

You are or may soon be considering an internet sales tax. Making the thousands of small businesses subject to 9,600 different sales taxes on top of their day to day stuff is has an ignored law written all over it. Currently Ohio has a “Use” tax for items bought over the internet. That is promptly ignored by every Ohio resident already.

Do you think a small retailer, selling used items bought in Maryland, is going to sign up to send a check for that item to the taxing authority in Ohio? Honestly?

What about the person that caught a hardware store going out of business and bought 250 boxes of nails in Kentucky. So John Doe in L.A. wants 20 boxes of nails. Will John Smith in Kentucky know about the .5 sales tax on building supplies? How about the guy in Ohio selling a ceiling fan to the guy in L.A. Is that a building supply or just a nice thing because his normal sales is used computers?

Will Lumber Liquidators get a special rate until Katrina is done? Are they going get to discount the mailing costs? Or will that still go to the customer plus the taxes?

I am against an internet sales tax, but at least do it right.

Take the 9600+ hundred tax districts, take the max rates, including zeroes for states like Delaware. Then determine the average to the nearest quarter percent. So the average comes to something like 4.25%. That is the tax rate for every state, Then the internet vendor collects 4.25% regardless of state. They made 25% of sales to Kentucky, then the Kentucky Auditor gets 25% of the pot. They had zero sales in New Jersey, and they send nothing. That makes sense. Not this pile of BS and being subject to 9600 districts.

That will drive small business out of business. Or the alternative, when they don’t collect a tax, they will be criminals in L.A. California, but have never left their house. So the screw you all attitude to the Federal Government. The only way would be to charge and prosecute every single small business on the internet. And what would you do about eBay and other similar auction sites? Are you going to say that I have to pay taxes on everything over $600 because I decided to dump my whole DVD collection? I paid taxes buying it the first time. Why is it being taxed again? What if I sold the collection off in my front yard as a yard sale? Would it be taxable?

Until you get a grip on the counter arguments — your idea holds no weight with me. (42)