Entries Tagged 'Politics' ↓

…you have no right to bitch about me not voting if you don’t watch this episode of South Park.

Seriously, though. Let me explain in as plain, and emotion-free language as possible why I think non-voting can be a valid course of action.

I have one issue that is a guaranteed litmus test for a candidate: Gun rights. Shocking, I know. If a candidate is anti-gun, there is absolutely no chance of me voting for them, whatsoever.

Being pro-gun does not guarantee my vote, though, because I have a lot of other rights I hold near and dear: Like my right to free speech. Or, freedom of association. Freedom both of religion and from religion. My right not to have my door kicked down and my property searched and seized for no good reason. My right to the fruits of my labor.

There are even some rights I might not personally exercise that I believe others should have, like the right to have a romantic relationship with the person of your choosing, without the state having the ability to issue discriminatory contracts on the basis of that romantic relationship. Or, the right of able-bodied, sound-minded individuals to serve in uniform, and not to have to lie about their personal lives in the process. I think you have the right to put into your body, or take out of it, whatever you wish, so long as you don’t harm other non-consenting individuals in the process.

I’m not willing to give up the rights I might not personally exercise so that I can keep the ones I do, because that’s a really, really bad precedent to set. (First they came for…) And I’m certainly not willing to give up some of my rights in favor of my other rights.

If you laid out the individual portions of a candidate’s platform as referendums, rather than as part of a “representative” package, how would you vote on each? At what point do you decide it’s okay to, effectively, change your vote for the sake of other issues in question?

Sometimes, there are issues that don’t exactly involve fundamental civil liberties, and I’m able to hold my nose and vote for a candidate I disagree with in part so long as they’re where I want them on civil liberties. However, I won’t cast a compromised vote on freedom. I just won’t do it. I am not willing to watch a freedom I cherish going down the drain and know I actively did something to help it along. I think it’s a sick, sad thing when we see it as noble and proper to offer up liberties as sacrificial lambs because heaven forbid we don’t exercise a different “right” (to vote).

So, if both of the major candidates are civil liberties failures, what are my options?
1. Vote third party.
2. Write someone in.
3. Don’t vote.

#1 and #2 are certainly options (and I’ve done both), but, well, let’s be pragmatic about it: They’re usually not gonna win. Yeah, yeah, “They’ll never win if people like you keep not voting for them!” Actually, they’ll never win unless they figure out how to run with the big dogs. They’ll never win until they find some big money and learn to campaign. Again, pragmatically, they’ll probably never actually win until we hit the reset button or otherwise get rid of the parties as we know them, because they have a monopoly on our political system. Don’t believe me? Take a look at your local “Tea Party” candidates. They’re all fired up to change the Washington status quo – with a big R next to their names! Have you seen any indication third-party ideas are actually impacting (or frightening) the party elite in any appreciable way, aside from causing them to provide enough lip service for people to be deluded into thinking they’re making a difference?

When it comes to writing in- heck, I found out here that they don’t even release who all was written in unless they get something like 100 votes. While I’m sure your vote for John Galt sure made an impression on the person counting votes (sarcasm), it actually accomplished nothing other than adding your warm body to the voter turnout, and that is a very bad thing. The last thing I want is for the Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich to be able to claim a mandate because a fantastic 78% of people turned out to vote, and therefore the people have spoken!

I have talked about this before, and I say it again: Until we get a “None of the Above” on the ballot, I can’t get behind the idea of showing up to vote just for the sake of showing up to vote. Have you ever heard a newly-elected official say, “Hey, folks, I know you only voted for me because I sucked slightly less than the other guy, so I’ll try to not let you down” or “I know my position on [Issue X] is not popular amongst my voters, so rather than having tens of thousands of constituents go without representation on that issue, I’ll change MY position.”? No, they are either so stupid or so evil as to behave as if every vote cast for them was cast by a 100% devoted fan. Both parties know they can get away with producing utter shit for candidates, and people will turn out to vote for two reasons: A) They’re convinced their party is inherently better than the other party (lesser evil), regardless of how much the actual candidate in question sucks, and B) Someone tells them they better vote because someone fought for their right to do it, or something equally guilt-trippy.

Well, sorry, folks. I know the Democrats are very bad news, but Republicans also scare the bejeezus out of me, so there’s no inherent value in the equation for me. And as to the other bit, I get really, really mad about people using the military to advance their agenda, especially when it involves some other guy’s service. I don’t claim to speak for those who have served, and really wish others wouldn’t, either.

I did ask The Inconvenience how he feels about the “you should vote because someone sacrificed for it” thing, though. He pointed out that it’s kinda like the idea that he fought for your freedom of religion–just because that’s true doesn’t mean people aren’t free to be atheists. The idea is that those who fight for liberty fight for your right to make choices, and that doesn’t just mean the choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. You’re free to vote for neither, too.

In case it isn’t perfectly clear, none of what I’m saying applies to apathy. I’m talking about reaching the conclusion not to vote after research and thought. Furthermore, if there is even one candidate or referendum issue you can truly support, then yes – you should go vote! If you choose to leave blank, vote third party or write-in on all the other races, it’s irrelevant to me. I just think showing up to vote just to engage in the act of voting is missing the mark, and frankly counterproductive.

I will be voting this year. We have four referendum issues on the ballot tomorrow, which I will vote yes or no on. I also intend to vote for Walt Minnick as my representative. Yes, I’m bad at national politics, because I’m voting for someone who actually (more or less) represents what I believe, instead of voting based on national power balance games or what have you. Sorry. I haven’t yet decided what I’ll do for all the other races.

If you haven’t informed yourself about what you have the opportunity to vote on tomorrow, you should. If you have informed yourself and find the best thing you can do is abstain, you won’t find any criticism here. If you have informed yourself and have found candidates or issues you can truly support, congratulations: You’re in the minority, and you’re fortunate. Enjoy it.

I’ve had a couple emails wondering why I’m being so quiet about politics. The truth is, I’m just pissed off across the board, and if it weren’t for Walt Minnick I wouldn’t be going to the polls at all.

Remember that Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich episode of South Park? Yet another election is shaping up to be just that. We have the Obama Cheer Squad in one corner, and the Knee Jerk Reaction in the other. Oh, yay. I can hardly wait to choose between social and economic freedoms, yet again.

I’m not gay, in case you missed that memo. None of my closest friends are gay, at least not that I know of. Gay rights really do not affect my daily life. However, on principle, I will not throw homosexuals under the bus for the sake of the rights I do exercise on a daily basis. I will not participate in systematic bigotry under the guise of “family values.” If your family values are so flimsy as to require the support of a government as corrupt as ours, you have way bigger problems than you want to admit. What kind of faith is found at the point of a sword?

Anyway, I will not get behind bullshit “Tea Party” candidates who profess to stand for liberty while crying for MOAR WAR ON DRUGS! and LESS GHEYS! because heaven forbid Joe smokes a bowl instead of drinking a fifth of Idaho Silver, or our kids learn that Janie has two momies at their public school. Waaait just a sec, Mr. Tea Party – shouldn’t you be more worried about getting our kids out of public school, period? Aren’t you kinda missing the big picture, here? Hmm?

*crickets*

So, hey. You can thank Raul Labrador for getting out the vote (for Minnick), with brilliance like this, on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

“Mr. Minnick’s vote is a disappointment to me, and disappointment for most Idahoans,” Labrador, a state representative from Eagle, said in a statement on his campaign website. “His vote seems especially inappropriate on Memorial Day Weekend. The Clinton Administration found a practical solution to this problem which guarded the military’s integrity. But Nancy Pelosi wanted to appease her base. I am surprised Walt Minnick chose to support her social and political agenda rather than the values of Idaho.”

Mr. Labrador: You’ve never worn a uniform, yet you think it’s proper to invoke what is or isn’t appropriate on Memorial Day to advance your agenda? You don’t speak for this Idahoan, and in fact you can kiss my freedom-loving ass.

If things completely go to hell in the next session, and Walt Minnick defects from the Blue Dogs and screws us all – which the GOP keeps insisting is going to happen – I guess you can blame me. All I know is he’s the only guy on the ballot who seems to have any grasp whatsoever on the idea of keeping the government out of my bedroom, doctor’s office, gun safe, and wallet.

You know, one of these days y’all are going to show up to find PGB has been re-named: “You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas Panama.” Is the concept of just leaving us all alone that hard to grasp?

A friend of mine just posted this on her blog titled “Losing the Cool Photo Op War.” I *had* to steal it.

Contrast:

vs.

I LOL’ed, truly.

Page 11 of the September 2010 issue of Soldier of Fortune is a full-page advertisement for H-S Precision’s HTR, favorite of the FBI, which reads in part: “America’s Freedom Protected by American Products.” Ha, ha.

We’re talking about Lon Horiuchi-lovin’ H-S Precision.

Soldier of Fortune is a weird mixed bag of JBT love/hate, so I don’t know how it’ll be received, but we’ll be letting them know The Inconvenience won’t renew his subscription if they don’t end their relationship with H-S Precision.

You can email the editorial staff of SOF at editorsof@aol.com. Even if you’re not a regular SOF reader, take a moment to let them know how you feel about H-S Precision and those who do business with them.

I’m proud to say I’m good friends with Mr. Baker:

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/legal_cases.cfm?legalcaseid=224

Go get ‘em, buddy! :)

Earlier today, we noticed that the Idaho National Guard armory down the street was flying their flag at half-staff. The Inconvenience remarked that it is downright insane to lower the the flag on Independence Day, especially in honor of such a distasteful waste of flesh as Robert Byrd.

Turns out it’s also in direct violation of the Presidential Proclamation on the subject.

Not fifteen minutes after I learned that, to what did my wondering eyes did appear, but a freshly-shaven, sharp-looking Sergeant of Marines in full dress blues, striding on down to the Armory… and raising the flag to full-staff.

*cough*

Sure glad I don’t know anybody who would do anything like that…

*whistles*

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin prosecutor said he won’t enforce a host of state weapons laws after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute Wisconsin’s prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, transporting uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying guns in public buildings and taverns and carrying switchblades and butterfly knives. He said the Supreme Court’s ruling renders those statutes unconstitutional.

…

Fox, a Democrat with self-described Libertarian leanings, faces re-election in 2012. He said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press but if the Brady Campaign wants to mount a recall drive, the organization should “bring it on.”

“If a majority of people want me to move on, that’s the price for standing up and saying ‘this is what I believe,’” Fox said.

There are some really lulzy quotes in there from a mentally defective police chief, so go read the whole thing. I’d really like to know if the predicted hogleg rush came to pass, hurr… I’m going to guess not.

Fox’s whole press release can be read here.

“These so-called “public safety” laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.”

OH MY GOSH JUST GO READ IT.

Maybe I’m a nerd, but this makes me positively giddy. I really want to email Mr. Fox and thank him for his badassery. Right now all I have is, “Dear Mr. Fox, you’re fantastic. Love, Me” so I should probably wait until I stop swooning.

I’m on the iPhone and haven’t read the decision yet, but had to make a brief post to join in the McDonald celebration.

We win!!!

I also saw someone quicker-witted than I changed the Brady Campaign’s Wikipedia page to label them, by definition, a hate group – due to their stated opposition to an established constitutional right. Love. It.

As several commenters pointed out, the problem with the death penalty is bigger than the death penalty. It’s the justice system, which is broken.

Because of stories like Cory Maye’s, I will never support the idea that sentencing a man to death is as simple as two credible witnesses (credible like… police officers?), or that we should execute someone before they can run the gamut of appeals (through appeals, Cory was removed from death row and granted a new trial).

The Case of Cory Maye – read it (again), please.

I believe to the core of my soul that it is better to let undeniably guilty men languish in prison for life, instead of facing death, than it is to execute even one innocent man. And, so long as the definition of murder can bend based on the last name of the person you kill or the color of your jury, I don’t see how it’s possible to have that sort of perfection.

So, what does this have to do with the case of the guy in Utah, who was a repeat offender, obviously guilty? Give the state the power to kill him, and you give the state the power to kill Cory.

From the NRA on H.R. 5175:

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Later in the same statement:

We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

If the NRA gets its piece of the pie, they’ll stay quiet. Only if they don’t will they actively oppose the bill.

That’s pretty much the definition of selling out, you two-faced, double-speaking morons.

EDIT: By the way, I’m really, REALLY sick of everyone making excuses for the NRA’s bad behavior. It absolutely galls me how many gunnies are willing to turn a blind eye every time they sell us up the river “compromise” on something because they’re the biggest gun rights organization out there. I don’t really give a good god damn how big they are when they fail at actually protecting our interests.

I don’t give anyone carte blanche to speak on my behalf, especially an organization hell-bent on securing a monopoly – to what effect? When every last check on the NRA is stripped of its political power, by a combination of gun owner fear and legislative action, and we have only the NRA to represent us… Do you really trust them that much? If we treat the NRA with such undeserved reverence when we have other options, they know they’ve got us on complete lockdown if they can kill the competition. And then what?

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.