Owning a fire extinguisher means you are a fire-happy homicidal maniac who wants to see everything around you burn.

At least, that's the impression I got from all the news reports I've been seeing for the last month and a half, quoting "experts" from the Obama Administration all the way down. It's kind of confusing, you know? I mean, I'd always been taught that a responsible adult prepares for unwanted eventualities, and that closing your eyes and chanting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever someone presents you with inconvenient truths you don't want to hear is the sign of an irresponsible juvenile, yet again and again, I've been seeing news reports that equate owning fire extinguishers with mass murder, just because a rare few individuals (so rare that in reality they're a statistical blip) have used fire to murder groups of people en masse.

Now I know that some of you are going to argue that the news isn't about fire extinguishers at all. It's about something entirely different. Something that isn't the same at all. But if you think about it rationally, like a responsible adult, isn't it?

Look at this:

Tell me, how is this a sign that you are a budding George Holman?

Now. Look at this:

Tell me, how is this any different?

They're both nothing more than tools, designed for dealing with emergency situations that no rational person wants to be mixed up in, but any rational, responsible adult recognizes that they may have to deal with at one time or another, whether they want to or not. Would you honestly condemn someone for having a fire extinguisher in their kitchen?

If yes, you're not rational and there's no talking with you.

If no, how can you, as a rational, responsible adult, explain condemning the person who owns the other variety of fire extinguisher?

It is just not possible for a rational, responsible adult to approve of one and condemn the other. Doing so demonstrates that you are either not rational, or you are not a responsible adult.
If it's the first, you are worthy of the same compassion I would offer any other irrational being.
If it's the second, you have earned only contempt, for an adult who chooses to reject responsibility is contemptible and unworthy of respect.

---

Fire extinguisher photo credit: Tal Bright via photopin cc
Rifle photo credit: IcyNudibranch via photopin cc

Just in case you didn't already know...

...there is a wealth of evidence that not only is there no scientific basis for vaccination, but that the entire concept is a hoax, used to prop up pharmaceutical company profits and indoctrinate people into the belief that the government knows what's best for them.
The British Society for Ecological Medicine, in March, 2011, not only made these claims, but provided original documentation, obtained both by original research and by Freedom of Information requests, to support them.
I already know that there are people with a religious need to believe that vaccines are safe, efficacious, and necessary, but the science says otherwise.

Did you know?

In times of war, the U.S. Constitution gives the President the power to ignore the Constitution? Including wars that are not declared, as required under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution? Apparently, the people who published the copy of the Constitution that I've read neglected to include the portion that gives the President that power. Or maybe it's in a classified section of the Constitution, that's only available to members of the Executive Branch?

Did you know that the President does not condone or authorize torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners? I guess that means that Manadel al-Jamadi, Abed Hamed Mowhoush, and Nagem Sadoon Hatab, among nearly a hundred others, are still alive and well and being treated with basic human dignity? And I guess that means that those photos from Abu Ghraib were just Photoshop jobs? Oh, that's right, that's neither torture nor inhumane treatment - it's "enhanced interrogation techniques." After all, America doesn't torture its prisoners. Never mind that when other countries used the exact same techniques, their officials were charged - by America - with war crimes.

Did you know that the President insists on the preservation of the human rights of all American prisoners? But then again, habeas corpus isn't a human right, apparently.

How do I know all this is true? Because I've been assured so by Nancy Theis, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence.

So, from now on, when someone tries to tell me that America is engaged in an illegal war, I'll just point them at that super-secret, classified portion of the Constitution that only the President has access to, that gives him the power to engage in war without the need for a pesky Declaration of War, and without the need to obey any of those pesky rules in the public portion of the Constitution.

And when anyone tells me that America tortures and mistreats its prisoners, I'll just point out to them that it's not torture when America does it - only when other countries do it.

And when anyone tells me that America violates human rights, I'll just point out to them that little things like habeas corpus aren't really human rights after all.

After all, I have been assured this is so by the Assistant to the President. And she wouldn't lie, would she?

Ron Paul and the GOP

Stephen Dinan makes the usual mistake that political pundits make when talking about Ron Paul and his supporters. He assumes that people who support Ron Paul are Republicans, and that the GOP just has to figure out how to keep them "in the fold."

I'm afraid Mr. Dinan is a little confused. OK, make that a lot confused. 

Ron Paul doesn't appeal to Republicans. He doesn't even entirely appeal to Libertarians. The people he appeals to are those who have this silly idea that the U.S. Constitution means something, and that the U.S. government is supposed to obey it. 

That's never been the Republican ideal, except in the rhetoric they used during the 1980s and 1990s to try to sell the Democrats as the party of socialism. The Republican Party is the party of high taxes, corporate welfare, large government projects, and empire. It's been that way since the 1850s. The whole image of the GOP as "the party of small government" is nothing but a marketing gimmick. Sadly, it's a marketing gimmick that the average American (and most Republicans in particular) believes.

Since the GOP has done everything from threatening Ron Paul voters (using Glenn Beck as their mouthpiece) to outright vote fraud (in New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Washington state, at the very least) to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination, I have to ask, why should anyone who supports Ron Paul even give the GOP a second look? It's obvious they don't want you. It's obvious they think they can manage quite nicely without you. Well, why not take them up on it and show them just how well you can get along without the GOP?

Vote Libertarian. Vote Constitution Party. Vote Boston Tea Party. Hell, write in your own name on the ballot. Just don't vote for either of the "major" parties. If you support Ron Paul, it's obvious you're not a Democrat, so you wouldn't be voting for their candidate, and since the GOP has shown it doesn't want you, why should you vote for its candidate?

Immigrants and Idiots

A couple days ago, I was debating with one of those no-nothing anti-immigrant morons, when he came up with what he imagined was an utterly devastating reply to the facts I presented showing that immigrants are, despite his fevered imaginings to the contrary, not a detriment to society.

His so-called argument was that, since immigrants send the money they make home to their families in whatever country they come from, they're stealing it from the American economy, and that's bad.

Let's pause a moment while you consider the sheer mindlessness inherent in the argument presented. What's that? Yes, you, in the back of the class. You don't understand why I say the argument is mindless? Well, let's review some basic economics then, shall we?

The American dollar, like most other national currencies, is what we call a fiat currency. What this means is that the dollar has value only because the U.S. government says it has value.

I'll repeat that, because it is very important to understand. The U.S. Dollar has value only because the U.S. government says it has value.

So what does this have to do with the argument above? It's really quite simple.

Unlike a representative currency, which is backed by something of real value (gold, silver, crude oil, diamonds, whatever), a fiat currency is valuable only in relation to the country it represents. In addition, a fiat currency is not removing something of real value from the treasury of the country it was printed in, because there is nothing of real value backing it. 

So let's take our hypothetical immigrant, who is working his tuchis off in America, saving his money, and sending it home to his family. What is he actually sending home? Pieces of paper that the U.S. government says have a certain value. But -- and this is important to remember -- it is only in relation to the U.S. economy that those pieces of paper have the value promised by the U.S. government. 

In other words, those pieces of paper are worthless anywhere else in the world, until the bearer chooses to exchange them for his own government's fiat currency. When those pieces of paper are exchanged, they begin their journey back to America, whether as a part of a string of exchanges, or as the currency used in purchase of American goods. Either way, it is only when those pieces of paper are used in an economic exchange that returns them to America that they are of any value at all. 

The only way you could believe that an immigrant sending his savings overseas is somehow stealing dollars from the American economy, is if you believe that the dollars have intrinsic value, rather than merely being glorified IOUs with nothing but trust in the government to support them AND you believe that the immigrant does not have the right to engage in economic exchanges on his own behalf. Even those beliefs are wrong, but they're not the point of this post. If you want a discussion of them at a later time, we can go into them, but the point I'm making is that as long as the currency in question is a fiat currency, it has no value except in relation to the economy of the nation in which it was printed, and therefore can not be"stolen" from the economy merely by being temporarily in another nation.

If Cars were treated like Guns

Found on a mailing list:

• Convicted felons could not own or drive a car.
• You'd pay for a car, register it, and then wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up your car.
• Purchasing a used car from a neighbor requires the same waiting period, and you would have to transact the sale through a licensed car dealer.
• If you trade in your old car for a newer model, you still have to wait 5 to 15 days to pick the new one up.
• You could buy a car and register it, but you'd need a special permit to take it on the streets.
• To get the above "street permit" you have to show good cause, and be of good moral character (as defined by the licensing authority).
• Persons convicted of "domestic violence" could not own or drive a car, even if that conviction occurred 30 years ago.
• Your car would have to be stored where no child could access it and hurt themselves playing with it.
• In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) you would first need a permit from the police department to buy a car, which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain.
• If you buy a car, and then move to another state, you may have to leave the car behind since the other state may not accept the make and model you own.
• If a minor child stole your car and hurt himself or others with it, you'd be guilty of a felony.
• In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) you would have to store your car partially disassembled.
• Failure to register your car would be a federal felony (prevents you from ever owning another one, for the rest of your life).
• People under psychiatric care, or declared to be mentally incompetent, could not own or drive a car.
• Some models of automobiles might be banned after you buy them, and you'd have to turn them over to the government without compensation.
• "Assault vehicles" look evil and must be specially registered at extra cost. Hummers, 4x4 trucks, Suburbans, Dodge Vipers, Nissan NSX's, and Corvettes are likely targets.
• Cars under a certain size, or having certain features, could not be imported.
• You could not modify your car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering.
• The government would allow some states or cities to not issue licenses at all, for any reason (or no reason at all).
• Cars could not be operated on city streets with gasoline in the tank. (Kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?)
• In some states (e.g. Virginia, California) you could only buy one car per month.
• There would be no traffic "infractions". Instead, all violations would be criminal misdemeanors or felonies.
• It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller.
• Car dealers would have to allow government agents to review their records without a warrant and without notice.
• Car dealers who sell a car to someone prohibited would be charged with a federal felony.
• Car dealers would be subject to being shut down by the government, and charged with a felony, for failure to keep proper records. The government inspector defines what "proper records" means.
• The inventory of car dealers could be seized and destroyed before the dealer is ever charged in court.
• Your car could be declared to be one of the banned kind, even after you legally bought it, and you would be charged as a criminal, based solely on the word of a government auto inspector, who doesn't even have any written guidelines to what is required for a car to be banned.
  

We Have To Send A Message!

Have you ever noticed that, whenever anyone tries to convince politicians to do anything that makes sense, like decriminalizing marijuana, restore the 2nd Amendment, protect people's privacy rights, or whatever, their response is some variation on "we have to send a message"?

Nobody ever asks them what kind of message they're trying to send.

Maybe that's because people know, even without being told, that the message they're sending is one of the following:

"You are stupid." - The politician believes you are too stupid to be able to live your own life without being told what to do by the government.

"You are evil." - The politician believes you are an evil person and must be constrained by government power to prevent you from doing whatever it is the government has declared to be "evil."

"You are insane." - The politician believes that you are crazy. You must be, because only crazy people would question the beneficence of the all-powerful government.

So let's be real here. Why should we trust, or believe, anyone whose essential message is any one of the three messages I've mentioned here?

Are you a terrorist?

The Dept. of Homeland Security has defined what they consider a "domestic terrorist" - and their definition includes anyone who:

• Believes the Constitution has been subverted by the government.
• Opposes gun control
• Believes the government is violating their rights
• Believes that the government's policies are criminal and/or immoral.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the following images, captured from a Homeland Security training website before the pages were pulled after being publicized by the Classically Liberal blog.

(Note that the page had to be taken in two shots, but you can clearly see where the text overlaps between the first and second shot.)

King George of America

An interesting, and far too accurate, comparison between George W Bush and King George the III, can be found at King George of America.

It's really worth your time to read and think about it.