Most everyone I know here in the US is voting this week. And while I think participation in the voting process is a crucial duty in a free society, I also think that most people do it wrong and would like to urge
you to consider how you pick your candidates and initiative positions.
A lot of people seem obssessed with setting up a hierarchy of some kind, roughly broken down into people in charge, in varying degrees, and people who should just do what they're told and not complain. I think this ties in in a horrid way with the fact that people don't think very clearly about the distinction between leadership and management.
Leadership is about showing people the way forward and letting them choose for themselves. Management is about making people do what you think is best for them and for society as a whole. And people elected into
office as managers typically exclude themselves from the rules that they enact into law. Leadership is awkward and inefficient but is the way forward in a free society. Managing people is efficient but stifles
freedom.
Unfortunately, I believe that most people who are voting are, consciously or unconsciously, voting to elect a strong manager rather than a leader. Maybe they are frightened by the media and their constant panics and alarums (Ebola! Gun violence! Abortion! Gay people subverting family values! Drugs!). Maybe they fancy themselves smarter and wiser than their fellow citizens and want them managed in a sensible fashion. In any case, I would argue strongly that these partisan voters, party line Democrats and Republicans, are
what are dragging us deeper and deeper into idiocy every year.
Please vote but only for real leaders. And where initiatives are concerned, don't vote to "show those people I don't like who's boss". We've had enough petty vindictiveness, thank you very much.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Why I support firearm background checks...and oppose Washington Initiative 594
I am a long time gun owner and was a firearms safety instructor for
over 10 years. Where guns are concerned, I am all about safety and
responsibility. I support background checks.
But Washington's Initiative 594 is bad legislation and I am encouraging friends and anyone who will listen to vote against it.
Here is the short version of why I oppose I594:
Why would someone who thinks background checks are a good idea be against I594? For starters because most gun transactions in Washington state already include some form of background check. This includes all sales through licensed dealers, as well as sales taking place in the state's largest gun shows. Yes, despite all the news fear and panic about closing the so-called "gun show loophole", the gun community has complied with laws and instituted their own practices involving background checks that already accomplish most of what this initiative claims to be seeking.
Most gun sales in the state now involve background checks (FFLs, large gun shows, most private sales).
I 594 (text available here) requires all sales AND TRANSFERS in WA state to go through a licensed dealer and the Department of Licensing. What constitutes a transfer?That is a very important question and one that the initiative's sponsors and backers are treating as a minor quibble. I594 includes some transfers such as inherited firearms and temporary transfers for firearms safety classes. Yes, the people who are trying to co-opt the "gun safety" label not only don't teach gun safety (unless you count abstinence training), they are now making it more difficult for people to obtain firearms safety classes.
Note that the background check at a dealer will involve tracking firearms sales and transfers through the department of licensing. It does not provide for the costs of this new DOL task. In any case, it effectively
creates a mechanism for starting to register all firearms sales and transfers in Washington state. This is a very bad thing because the primary thing that registration facilitates is confiscation.
Who opposes I594? A lot of people, including the majority of law enforcement. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs favor the more sensible I591and oppose I594. So does the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (here). Both note the potential for I594 to create a firearms registry (useless if it doesn't, a civil liberties infringement if it does).
Initiative 594 is bad law. Please check for yourself and vote against it.
But Washington's Initiative 594 is bad legislation and I am encouraging friends and anyone who will listen to vote against it.
Here is the short version of why I oppose I594:
- most sales and transfers in WA state already include a background
check, a process developed by gun owners to police themselves. I 594 is a
punitive attempt to punish and hinder a civil liberty the 1% dislikes,
primarily funded by the 1% (e.g., Bloomberg).
- I594 requires all sales AND TRANSFERS to be completed through a
firearms licensee and the DOL. Note the word transfers carefully...it
includes non-sales such as inheriting a firearm and loaning a firearm to
a person for most purposes, e.g., safety classes.
- law enforcement organizations also oppose I594 because they do not feel it necessary and because it can interfere with their duties
- I594 takes the state a step closer to California's crazy gun laws by registering legally owned firearms and prohibiting private transfers
Why would someone who thinks background checks are a good idea be against I594? For starters because most gun transactions in Washington state already include some form of background check. This includes all sales through licensed dealers, as well as sales taking place in the state's largest gun shows. Yes, despite all the news fear and panic about closing the so-called "gun show loophole", the gun community has complied with laws and instituted their own practices involving background checks that already accomplish most of what this initiative claims to be seeking.
Most gun sales in the state now involve background checks (FFLs, large gun shows, most private sales).
- Purchases through dealers include the federal NICS check.
- Purchases at Washington Arms Collector shows involve background checks. You cannot become a WAC member without successfully completing a background check.
- Private individuals can also effectively verify the background of the person they are selling to by verifying that they possess a state Concealed Pistol License. This is a common practice...every private sale of a firearm that I have made involved verifying and recording CPL data
I 594 (text available here) requires all sales AND TRANSFERS in WA state to go through a licensed dealer and the Department of Licensing. What constitutes a transfer?That is a very important question and one that the initiative's sponsors and backers are treating as a minor quibble. I594 includes some transfers such as inherited firearms and temporary transfers for firearms safety classes. Yes, the people who are trying to co-opt the "gun safety" label not only don't teach gun safety (unless you count abstinence training), they are now making it more difficult for people to obtain firearms safety classes.
Note that the background check at a dealer will involve tracking firearms sales and transfers through the department of licensing. It does not provide for the costs of this new DOL task. In any case, it effectively
creates a mechanism for starting to register all firearms sales and transfers in Washington state. This is a very bad thing because the primary thing that registration facilitates is confiscation.
Who opposes I594? A lot of people, including the majority of law enforcement. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs favor the more sensible I591and oppose I594. So does the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (here). Both note the potential for I594 to create a firearms registry (useless if it doesn't, a civil liberties infringement if it does).
Initiative 594 is bad law. Please check for yourself and vote against it.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
When is Misogyny OK?
Unfortunately, concern over these issues is strangely selective. There's a lot of focus on women on the Internet being harassed and receiving threats from antisocial cretins, which absolutely makes sense. But what about a Congressional candidate who is soliciting nude photos and sex tapes for a teenage girl and blatantly posting all sort of ugly comments about her?
Does it matter whether he is a Republican or Democrat? Should it?
Does it matter whether she is a cosplayer or engaging in some other activity he disapproves of? Should it?
Mike Dickinson is a Congressional candidate in Virginia who seems comfortable posting all manner of ugly, repulsive comments on Twitter under the painfully ironic handle @VoteMike2014. He happens to be a Democrat
One of the latest Internet tempests in a teacup is people going berzerk about a teenager from Texas who was photographed after hunting a lion. Dickinson's Tweets below were screen-captured this morning.
Will this sort of ugliness get as strong a response at SDCC leering at cosplayers? I sure as Hell hope so...
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Improving Seattle Traffic
This morning's rush hour commute in the Seattle area included, predictably, numerous Washington State Patrol officers checking peoples' speed with radar. Why aren't more people complaining about the ridiculousness of SLOWING DOWN Seattle traffic? If anything, I would argue that Seattle traffic needs to go faster and drivers become more skilled.
Towards that end, I am proposing the creation of a new political party or organization, whose purpose will be the improvement of traffic in the Seattle area. These will be the initial steps in our process, not in any particular order:
1. Get as many dumb people as possible off the road: people who cannot drive without slowing down traffic or endangering other people. For example:
3. With the average driving skill level improved, freeway speeds could be raised 10-15 mph in ideal conditions.
4. No vehicle or driver incapable of safe travel at 70-75 mph would be allowed in the passing lane or HOV lane.
Towards that end, I am proposing the creation of a new political party or organization, whose purpose will be the improvement of traffic in the Seattle area. These will be the initial steps in our process, not in any particular order:
1. Get as many dumb people as possible off the road: people who cannot drive without slowing down traffic or endangering other people. For example:
- left lane campers: drivers who are unable to use multi-lane road intelligently
- creepers: drivers who travel busy roads at 10 mph or less looking for a turn
- blind optimists: drivers who pull out of driveways in a furious rush, without checking for pedestrians and then don't accelerate, causing traffic behind them to have to brake
- anyone driving intoxicated or operating electronic devices in an unsafe fashion
3. With the average driving skill level improved, freeway speeds could be raised 10-15 mph in ideal conditions.
4. No vehicle or driver incapable of safe travel at 70-75 mph would be allowed in the passing lane or HOV lane.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Derp
Over the weekend, I ran across a blog post which took exception to use of the word Derp. I have commented on it a little and will explain here a bit more about why this post irritated me.
The point isn't that I have a burning desire to say Derp. The point is that today we are *inundated* with people telling us we shouldn't say things, to the point that it's become really irritating and even a bit creepy. These days people spend so much time looking over things people say and write, seemingly hoping to find something they can scold people about, that it is almost impossible to say anything that isn't bland or mealy-mouthed without offending somebody. This country, which has the ideal of being the land of the free and the home of the brave, now has "first amendment zones" that are getting smaller and smaller. In my opinion, this control freak mindset has to start meeting (verbal) brickbats and the sooner the better.
People get offended when you comment for or against the two (identical) major political parties. Or for or against 3rd parties.
People get offended when you comment for or against being religious. Or when your brand of religion doesn't match theirs.
As a matter of fact, people get offended when you comment for or against civil liberties.
People get offended when you mention ethnicity. And often when you don't mention it. Even mentioning works like Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" offends some because his sensitivities don't match today's, ignoring the fact that this was an important work attacking Kind Leopold and Belgium's atrocities in the Congo.
People get offended when you say ANYTHING about sex or gender roles. And often when you ignore them.
I'm not the first person to comment on this whinging attempt to control people via hypersensitivity.
“Don’t step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said.”
- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
The point isn't that I have a burning desire to say Derp. The point is that today we are *inundated* with people telling us we shouldn't say things, to the point that it's become really irritating and even a bit creepy. These days people spend so much time looking over things people say and write, seemingly hoping to find something they can scold people about, that it is almost impossible to say anything that isn't bland or mealy-mouthed without offending somebody. This country, which has the ideal of being the land of the free and the home of the brave, now has "first amendment zones" that are getting smaller and smaller. In my opinion, this control freak mindset has to start meeting (verbal) brickbats and the sooner the better.
People get offended when you comment for or against the two (identical) major political parties. Or for or against 3rd parties.
People get offended when you comment for or against being religious. Or when your brand of religion doesn't match theirs.
As a matter of fact, people get offended when you comment for or against civil liberties.
People get offended when you mention ethnicity. And often when you don't mention it. Even mentioning works like Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" offends some because his sensitivities don't match today's, ignoring the fact that this was an important work attacking Kind Leopold and Belgium's atrocities in the Congo.
People get offended when you say ANYTHING about sex or gender roles. And often when you ignore them.
I'm not the first person to comment on this whinging attempt to control people via hypersensitivity.
“Don’t step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said.”
- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
