Founded by Geniuses, a Response

Recently a friend posted a list of things that make America a nation founded by geniuses but run by idiots. At first, I tried to have a reasoned discussion regarding the items on the list, but after being called one of the “idiots”, I felt that I needed to say something about the list. So here it goes. Also for the record, Jeff Foxworthy had nothing to do with this list.

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Penalties for those entering or remaining in the country illegally can be found by searching for 8 USC 1325 via the google. They include financial penalties, jail time, and deportation.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Parental consent laws, like other regulations regarding access to abortions, are constitutional so long as they do not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to acquire the procedure. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979). Parental consent or notification laws exist in 38 of 50 states. 

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Requiring identification in order to participate in private transactions between individuals and businesses is legal because participation in those activities is not a right enshrined in the Constitution. Unlike private interactions, the Constitution guarantees the right to vote and thus the restrictions that states place on that right are limited. The Federal Courts have repeatedly found that requiring a limited selection of identification in order to vote is unconstitutional but that laws that allow a wide variety of identification, including options that are available for free or at minimal cost are constitutional.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• This I cannot explain. I understand the argument that smaller magazines potentially limit the ability of a criminal to do damage with a gun but it seems like a half-ass solution to me. As for continuing military aid to nations who are in the midst of what can only be called a coup, that’s just stupid.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Also stupid.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• This is what happens when you institute security theatre, run by people who barely have a high school education. I’m all for respecting people’s beliefs, but since air travel is a private transaction I expect everyone to put up with the same bullshit I have to endure. In the case of the woman in hijab, a private space with a female agent should be more than sufficient to solve any issues. The same goes for the white guy who doesn’t want to go through a scanner, take him somewhere private and search him. 

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• I’m sorry, there’s no way I can explain in less than 300 words how badly this statement misrepresents what the U.S. government attempted to do through the assorted stimulus packages. The best I can do is say that government budgets are vastly different from personal budgets and that historically running short-term deficit during times of weak economic times leads to a reduction in the length and severity of recessions. 

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Zero tolerance laws are stupid. They reduce the role of the school administration to that of an overpaid babysitter. That said, a 2011 (CDC) survey indicates that more than 47 percent of all high school students say they have had sex; and 15 percent of high school students have had sex with four or more partners during their lifetime. Other studies have shown a marked decrease in the incidents of teen-births and STIs in states with comprehensive, medically accurate, sex ed. programs. 
• I’m not sure what problem people have with diversity education. Teaching children that different people have different beliefs seems like a good way to increase understand and tolerance, which as a society is an admirable goal. 

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Without addressing the taxes and the difference between regulation and “intrusion,” if you think SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, and subsidized housing are rewards, I challenge you to live under those conditions. 
• 90% of SNAP benefits go to the elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working household, not able-bodies working-age people who choose not to work. 
• WIC supports mothers and children ensuring they receive food and medical care so they can grow up to be productive members of society. What is your complaint about helping these people succeed?
• Medicaid also takes care of those who are least able to care for themselves, the elderly who have long-term medical issues. It provides them with a minimum level of care and insures that they and their families do not spend all their money on medical expenses. 
• Subsidized housing reduces homelessness, which reduces crime, increases access to education, and improves the ability of people to maintain employment. Which of these benefits bothers you?
• The “free phone” line is garbage. The program it refers to is Lineline and was started under Ronald Reagan. It provides basic telephone service to people who are at or below 135% of the federal poverty guidelines. It is not subsidized by taxpayer money but rather through the USF, a fee the telecommunications companies pay to the government (which many do pass along to consumers). The “free phone” aspect of the program is cellular providers offering free phones to qualifying participants in order to receive a payment from the government for the service they provide to the user. This is little different from when you get a free phone for signing a two year contract.

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots .

• Again, this could be a few hundred words in its own right, but the short answer is that by providing the unemployed with short-term compensation (and we can disagree on whether 99 weeks is too long) the government avoids adding additional people to other safety net programs, keeps people in their homes (which decreases the impact on the real estate bubble popping), and continues the flow of money through the economy so that businesses limit further cuts in employment. Further every state’s unemployment insurance program requires weekly reporting on efforts to find work for recipients and also works with recipients to improve skills and find work.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• Bankruptcy is a subject of much debate but it is also guaranteed in the Constitution. Bankruptcy law does effectively write off debt but it does not cover all debts or accessible to all people. I suppose the alternative could be that if a man cannot pay his debts we could force him into a sort of debt slavery or debtor’s prison, whereby creditors could recoup their losses, but I suspect that would offend a lot of people’s sense of right and wrong. 

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

• One, literally no one is taking away your right to defend yourself. Two, just like every other Constitutional right, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable restriction. That said, what law has been passed that keeps you from using deadly force in self-defense when faced with an aggressor using the same force? Please tell me, because that’s a law I will happy challenge.

If you want to have a discussion of the pros and cons of government policy, meet me for a beer some time. But, if you want to post a bunch of quippy sound bites that lack understanding and context you’re not going to be solving any of the really serious problems that we as a nation need to address.

Drug Testing for Welfare Assistance

  There has been some talk in Michigan of again reviving the idea that all applicants for state "welfare" aid  be required to pass a drug test. Not surprisingly there is substantial push back from groups who defend Constitutional right against such a proposal. Many people question where a violation of a Constitutional right would occur in such testing. The logic being that employers can mandate a drug test for their employees, why can't the same restriction exist for those receiving government aid?

  The short answer is, the difference is that a state is not a private actor, it is the government. 

  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. This includes searches of their person. As the state of Florida has already found out, the state cannot engage in suspicionless blanket invasion of a person without meeting a very high threshold. This is why Florida's law attempting to require such testing faced an injunction after only four months on the books (the link above goes to the opinion by the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals upholding that injunction). 

  While it is well and good to say that people benefiting from government aid should be held accountable for their actions at this time the Courts are skeptical of this argument. Perhaps the state of Florida can demonstrate a exceptional need but I don't know they it can.
  Using Florida's numbers from the short time that the law was in effect 4,048 people took the drug tests. Of that number 108 failed the test. That means that 2.67% (out of a very small sample) of people were actually impacted. I have a difficult time seeing a court rule in favor of a law that invades the privacy of a substantial section of the population in order to weed out such a small number.
  I am open to hearing other arguments on this issue but like it or not such laws are unlikely to stay on the books even if legislatures pass them. If we want the Constitution to protect us we have to accept that occasionally that protection will allow a small number of people to take advantage of the system. The Constitution protects everyone (good or bad) the same way.  

What the Heck?

Can someone explain to me the phrase "true American"?

It seems to crop up a lot in reshared facebook posts and in the commentary of the Tea Party and I do not understand what they are trying to imply.

I don't think they are referring to an immigrant from a poorer nation who struggled to afford to come to the United States for the promise of a chance at a better life.

Perhaps they mean someone with the courage to stand up for their beliefs and call bullshit when they hear others spewing words of hate or exclusion. But in the context I've seen it that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe they mean the native Americans who have been treated terribly since Europeans landed on the continent. Nah.

So really, what is this "true American"?

More help for Boston

If you want to make a donation online to help in the Boston recovery efforts ArsTechnica has a great list of potential recipients.

Vote with your Feet

Glad to see I'm not the only one upset with the NRA, hopefully more people who feel the same way will follow this example.

To be fair to the NRA, the part of the organization responsible for safety education does excellent work. The certified instructors are knowledgeable and in my experience passionate about teaching. The advocacy are however no longer represents the interests of gun owners, so much as the interests of gun manufacturers. 

I am Sorry, but you're Wrong

As a person is supports the right of a private citizen to keep firearms for their own protection I have an important announcement for anyone who believes that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution creates a limitless right to guy ownership.

You are wrong.

Its just that simple. There is no limitless right to gun ownership, just as there is no limitless right to speech. The Supreme Court established that both of those rights are subject to reasonable restriction. This means for example that your right to free speech stops when you stop telling the truth or when your speech creates the imminent threat of lawless activity. It also means that government regulation of firearms is not a death knell for gun ownership.

This week a minority of Senators representing a minority of a minority of citizen blocked legislation containing provisions supported by 90% of Americans from even getting the chance at an up or down vote on its merits. It failed because the NRA and other pro-gun manufacture groups (because that's what these groups support, not gun owners) lie. These groups lied and scared people into believing that this legislation is the beginning of the government coming for their guns. They also scared legislators with threats to withhold campaign donations or to support someone else. So those Senators used a long existing, but recently grossly abused, tactic to kill this legislation before it reached a point where a simple majority of Senators could voice their approval and allow it to progress to the House (where it likely would have died for the same reasons).

To those people who say that this legislation is a stepping stone to a national registry of guns,

You Are Wrong.

In fact the legislation specifically creates a criminal penalty for anyone attempting to create such a registry. But while we're on the subject, why is a national registry a bad idea? The 2nd Amendment says, "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." A national registry makes locating those who have the greatest ability to serve in a militia for the defense of the county possible. It makes solving crimes easier for police. It makes it easier to see where illegal gun sales occur. If you are a responsible gun owner why are you opposed to any of these things?

Not to squelch counter-arguments before someone makes them, but the first person who says, "I need a gun to defend myself from the government and a registry tells them where to start the confiscations," is getting a verbal smack-down.

Here's three reasons that argument fails:

1. If the government is coming for you, no amount of weapons you can buy will stop it. You cannot afford to oppose an AC-130 or Apache attack helicopter. 
2. Do you really believe that the U.S. military and law enforcement would participate in the complete disarming of private citizens? If so, nothing I say will change your mind, but just for a moment think about what part of the population would be needed to enforce either an illegal taking or to change the Constitution to make such a seizure legal.
3. No one wants to take your guns. This has never been an idea put forward by anyone seriously involved in the debate. Yes there are plenty of loud voices say that guns are the problem and we need to eliminate them, but there are also a lot of voices saying we need to get rid of all taxes and that's not happening any time either.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. I support concealed carry. I think that a ban of "assault style" weapons is a waste of time and I question the usefulness of a magazine capacity limit.

I support universal background checks to prevent those with criminal convictions and the mentally ill from purchasing guns.

I support heavy punishments for legal purchasers who fail to report lost or stolen guns that are later used in the commission of a crime.

I support harsh punishments for those who engage in "straw-man" buys.

I support the ability to engage in significant study  of gun related issues (something that is extremely difficult under current law)

I support the ATF having a Director, something that hasn't happened in seven years.

All of these things have the potential to decrease gun related violence, crimes committed with guns, and make the country a safer place.

I encourage people who disagree with me to present me with good arguments because I'm willing to listen, but expect me to come back at you as strong as you come at me, because I hold these belief strongly and will defend them.

Making Sausage

I deplore the state of affairs in Congress. The House of Representatives continues to hold showcase votes to overture the Affordable Care Act. The Senate is unable to confirm Cabinet level positions and judicial nominees due to anonymous holds, public holds by Senators engaging in extortion in return for allowing work to get done, and "filibusters". The 112th Congress passed less legislation that any Congress since they started tracking that number and the 113th Congress is on track to be just as ineffective. 
There is a lot of blame to spread around for why things have reached their present state, to name a few problems:

• Long standing practices used by both parties (that have been used exponentially more in recent years).
• The inability of the Speaker of the House to negotiate on behalf of his Members.
• The idea that any success for the present administration is a loss for Republicans
• The refusal to of the Speaker of the House to bring legislation to a vote unless it is supported by a majority of Republican Representative
• Special interest money

The idea that compromise legislation regarding background checks prior to purchasing firearms, legislation supported by 90% of the public, never got voted on based on its merits disgusts me. Our legislative process requires that a majority of Congressmen approve legislation but because a minority of a minority fears the NRA and other special interest money more than they care about maintaining the oath they swore, the Senate will not vote on that legislation.
We need to change the level of discourse in this country. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. Its about what is best for the nation as a whole. 

I didn't write this to shame those Republican Senators who voted against closure for the background check legislation but former-Representative Giffords wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that does an excellent job of doing just that. 

Boston

The thing that strikes me about terrorism is that the only way that it can ever succeed is if everyone the terrorists target gives up hope. Not death, destruction of property, or physical and psychological damage represent a victory for terrorists. Those things are terrible but for the terrorist they are only the tools used to drive hope from their enemies. But every time a tragedy occurs, both here in the U.S. and around the world (remember what we experienced today happens every day in many locations around the world) if you look for it you will see people rushing toward danger to help those in need. You will see total strangers unite to care for one another. You will see the best of humanity rise to the challenge.
So as you morn for those hurt in Boston or the next time you hear the news report of innocent children killed in the crossfire of a war they are too young to understand do not give up hope. For these tragedies shall serve as examples of our greatest hours. Do not wallow in your inability to control the world. Act in any way you can to be the hope that others need to see. Give blood, help a neighbor, be there for someone in need, but never give up hope.

If you haven't read Patton Oswalt's thoughts, take a look

If you want to help check out the following
American Red Cross

If you're looking for someone
Google People Finder

Freedom of Speech

As a follow up to my comments on polite discourse earlier this week I offer the following thoughts on "Freedom of Speech"
Freedom of Speech is not the freedom to not be called an asshole because of your speech.People who disagree with you (and call you an asshole, bigot, or hate monger) are not interfering with your Freedom of Speech.If your position on an issue causes people to call you a hate-monger, bigot, or an ignorant fuckwad, that isn't suppression of your freedom of speech (it may however be a reason you should reconsider your position).
A private citizen telling you to shut up isn't suppressing your Freedom of Speech.
If a "celebrity" says something that offends a lot of people and the private company who employs that celebrity fires them, that is not a symptom of political correctness run amok, interference with their freedom of speech, or a violation of their First Amendment rights. It is an example of capitalist principals, i.e. my spokesperson is an asshole and now people won't by my product. Solution, fire my asshole spokesperson.
If the government isn't the one telling you to shut up, your First Amendment rights haven't been violated.
You have an absolute right to your opinion and to voice that opinion. If the courage of your convictions is strong, I commend that even if I disagree with your position, You do not have a right to not have other people comment on, challenge, and deride your opinion.A private citizen telling you to shut up isn't suppressing your Freedom of Speech.If a "celebrity" says something that offends a lot of people and the private company who employs that celebrity fires them, that is not a symptom of political correctness run amok, interference with their freedom of speech, or a violation of their First Amendment rights. It is an example of capitalist principals, i.e. my spokesperson is an asshole and now people won't by my product. Solution, fire my asshole spokesperson.If the government isn't the one telling you to shut up, your First Amendment rights haven't been violated.You have an absolute right to your opinion and to voice that opinion. If the courage of your convictions is strong, I commend that even if I disagree with your position, You do not have a right to not have other people comment on, challenge, and deride your opinion.

Talking Politics

Here's your friendly periodic reminder about political discourse.
Only Hitler is Hitler.
Fascism is not "That which hurts my feelings or that I disagree with."
You can not be a socialist fascist.
Cite your sources (make sure they're legitimate), avoid hyperbole, logical fallacies are not your friend, and don't be a dick.