The U.S. constitution does not confer rights to the people - it restricts the power of the government from infringing on those rights.
The U.S. constitution does confer power to the government, of which the President is the executive. He may exercise those specific powers as long as he does not infringe any of the rights held by the people.
The president has no more rights than any other person.
The president may face more potential threats than you or I but that doesn't change the fundamental right of self-defense that you and I retain. Additionally, it is inappropriate for the government to determine an appropriate level of self-defense need for me just as it's inappropriate for me to choose the president's.
The larger argument here is that if an AR-15 is valid as a personal defense weapon (as defined by Homeland Security in a recent RFP) for government agents then why isn't it a valid personal defense weapon for the people.
The arms the people have had the right to bear have always matched the basic arms the military has employed. Muskets in the 18th century, lever action rifles and revolvers in the 19th and semi-automatic firearms in the 20th. It wasn't until very recently that the concept of divorcing military-style firearms from non-military use became fashionable.
The second amendment does NOT give the people the right to keep and bear arms. The language of the 2nd amendment is not one that grants a right to the people, it is language that restricts the power of the federal government. The power that is restricted is the power of the government to infringe a natural right already possessed by the people.
The natural right to keep and bear arms would exist without the second amendment. From United States v. Cruikshank, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
The Bill of Rights, of which the second amendment is a part, identifies its purpose as further restricting the power of the federal government. From the pre-amble to Bill of Rights, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The declaratory and restrictive clauses in the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of the government. While the government has certain powers it was thought that explicit restrictions of those powers was necessary for specific rights.
The 1st - It is not a right to free speech but rather a restriction on the federal government,..."Congress shall make no law..." The 2nd - discussed above, "...shall not be infringed" The 3rd - "No soldier shall..." The 4th - "...shall not be violated..."
The Bill of Rights places restrictions on the powers of the government to prevent specific infringements of particular rights of the people. It does not grant rights to the people, it merely recognizes rights already in existence.
He's actually more like Clinton than Bush when it comes to responding. Clinton used cruise missiles and Obama uses drones. Though drone attacks started under Bush, Obama has increased their usage. Clinton relied much too heavily on cruise missiles rather than other tools available to him in responding to crises. Many of the troublemakers accepted that they could do something and the cost would be a cruise missile that would be unlikely to find them specifically. Sadam Hussein said as much after he was captured - he believed that that his failure to acknowledge the weapons inspectors would only result in some more cruise missiles and that the U.S. was bluffing about an actual invasion. Clinton's response to Bin Laden in Afghanistan was also cruise missiles. Bush changed the rules of the game, for better or worse, by committing ground troops. Obama appears to be flowing back into Clinton's strategy of using drones tactically rather than committing ground troops. That's why I believe that Obama's military strategy is more akin to Clinton's than Bush's.
I disagree with the characterization of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan as being brazen. Imagine that your entire national security team has been coming to you for months claiming that they have finally tracked down Bin Laden. The intelligence infrastructure has placed assets on the ground in houses near where Bin Laden is believed to be and they also believe that Bin Laden is in the house. The only real voice against going after him in Pakistan comes from your Vice President. You ran for office highlighting that Bush's failure to capture or kill Bin Laden hurt the stature of the United States and, unlike Bush, you would bring him to justice. You also turned over responsibility for the final recommendation to the head of the CIA and he comes back with a "let's go for it" kind of recommendation.
What would have been brazen would have been to ignore all of that and NOT go after him.
What would have been even more brazen would have been to go in and taken Bin Laden alive and never say a word about it.
The unintended consequences of sex-offender registration and publication continue to ripple throughout society.
It's easy to think, I'm not a pedophile or rapist so I never have to worry about it. On the other hand, have you ever urinated in a public area such as a golf course.
It used to be a citation for urinating in public. Now it's indecent exposure and, upon conviction, requires registration as a sex offender which not only causes your name to be published but restricts where you can live. Some states (http://www.shazamlaw.com/Articles/Colorado-Bill-Aims-to-Stop-Sex-Offender-Registration-for-Public-Urination-Streaking.shtml) are working on changing their laws.
I play golf and I've had to warn fellow players to be quite careful that they not be seen while taking a break else risk becoming registered sex offenders.
While it's an interesting discussion regarding whether this information should be available via FOIA or subsequently published, what is lost is that the registration list shouldn't even exist.
The purpose of registration, especially when combined with making the data public, serves to inhibit and, therefore, infringe on the fundamental right.
You may not agree with the right but there is no valid governmental reason to require registration of something for which one has a fundamental right. I live in a state that does not have registration and most states do not. It's fascinating to me that most people just assume that guns should be registered and, therefore, the discussion is on publication of the information rather than on registration itself.
12-17% of gun-armed resisters were injured. Those who offered no resistance were twice as likely to be injured (gratuitously) and those who resisted without a gun were three times as likely to be injured.
The base source for the numbers comes from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and Criminal Victimization surveys.
People have a tendency to behave in ways that give them the most recognition, whether that recognition is stature, monetary reward or both.
For whatever reason prosecutors seem to be rewarded based on a win percentage, which is objective, vs. a justice served percentage which is subjective. Combine this reward system with an overcrowded judicial system and we end up with a bastardized incentive system that rewards over-charging suspects and attempting to get the suspect to plead down to a lesser charge. Either the person deserves to be tried for the higher charge or not. Using the potential of serious punishment in order to convince a defendant to accept a lesser charge does not serve justice.
I think Elliott Spitzer was a great example of this type of prosecutorial abuse. He developed a model where he went after many people who had committed no crime but were willing to plead down to lesser crimes to avoid the potential punishment and drawn-out legal process of facing a daunting legal challenge. Spitzer's final year or so when he was getting ready to run for governor was quite disgusting in that there were many people indicted during his run for governorship and the charges were dropped after the election because they weren't fully baked. I've argued that prosecutors should not be allowed to run for another office until at least two years after their last stint as a prosecutor to avoid the conflict of interest associated with running up prosecutorial win rates while running for another office.
I saw Spitzer on his CNN show after his fall from grace and he said as much when he promoted, in order to stop behavior with which he disagreed, of indicting a group of people for a crime. He said that they would never have to get a conviction because the mere threat would be enough to stop the behavior. This is a person willing to abuse his power in order to change the otherwise legal behavior of people with whom he disagreed.
Ted Stevens (Senator Internet Pipes) had prosecutors who were sanctioned and had his conviction overturned as a result. Unfortunately, his conviction was overturned after his death and cost him an election. Whether you liked Senator Internet Pipes or not doesn't change the fact that using federal prosecutors to intimidate citizens is unacceptable.
These aren't the only two cases. I seem to recall a number of prosecutorial misconduct cases over the past few years and it's a crying shame that it continues and costs so much pain for ordinary citizens.
Combine prosecutorial misconduct with the avalanche of new laws and regulations coming our way and we can expect this trend to continue mainly because we never know when we've run afoul of some law or regulation with which we are unfamiliar.
The only legal definitions of assault-weapons relate to cosmetic features and not functional capabilities or lethality.
However, if I'm going to use a gun for self-defense (I don't hunt) then I want one that is designed to stop people quickly. If there are lots of threats then I want to be able to stop lots of people.
The comment about "designed for one purpose - to kill lots of other people quickly" as a justification for banning makes no sense to me. I want an efficient firearm to stop any potential threat. Your description of so-called assault-weapons is, to me, a testament to its efficacy as a self-defense firearm.
An interesting phrase, "...military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned IMO."
In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court held that short-barreled shotguns could be banned because the military had no use for such a firearm. In Heller the Supreme Court held that guns in common use could not be banned. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country and the fact that it is a military derivative seems to make it even more protected (though I would argue that the modern AR-15 is not really a military derivative from a functional perspective). The AR-15 has a different hammer and trigger mechanism and the lower receiver is designed so that those components are not interchangeable with the fully-automatic military version.
The primary issue from a political perspective is that the two guns look alike and that's why we hear about banning "military style" weapons. If the AR-15 was truly a military weapon we would not need the "style" modifier in the drive to ban them.
More interesting to me, though, is the lack of recognition in a technical discussion forum that a market is likely to coalesce around efficiency. I would not expect a civilian firearm market that is seeking efficiency and ease of use would differ that markedly from a military firearm market that is seeking efficiency and ease of use especially considering that it is often the same manufacturer. The fact that the rifles share cosmetic features and the optics, magazines, slings and other accoutrements are interchangeable should surprise no one who expects efficiency in the market. Those shared features, though, in no way make the civilian AR-15 the same from a functional perspective as the military version.
What's more troubling is that law enforcement is exempt from the restrictions that are being passed. The reason for this is simple - the legislatures recognize that these firearms are effective tools when facing today's criminal threat. If I'm in a situation where I need to call the police because of a particularly nasty situation they would be bringing the same exact firearm that I am prohibited from owning. The police will show up after an indeterminate time to a situation where I am prohibited from using the same firearm they are bring. I've been trained with the firearm. The firearm is clearly found to be effective. Yet, I have to wait for someone else to show up in order to deploy the effective firearm.
The training part reminds me of the other reason this firearm platform has become the most popular - the firearm is operationally similar to the firearm with which military personnel have trained. When they leave the military and want to purchase a rifle they are more likely to gravitate to one which seems familiar to them.
I refuse to accept your claim that "we have failed at our responsibility to safely possess firearms." There are more firearms today than at any time in our history. There are more firearm owners. The tragedies that we have witnessed are not because of the existence of the firearm but to the reluctance we have toward forcing people into mental health treatment.
I refuse to give up my natural right to self-defense because defective humans exist.
First, the registration process shouldn't even exist - there's no practical or logical reason for it.
Secondly, we care enough about privacy that publishing the information about what videos you rent is illegal under federal law. We care enough about privacy that medical records are protected by federal law. We care enough about privacy that abortion is a constitutionally protected procedure.
Why shouldn't gun owners who are required to register (for no good reason) not have an expectation of privacy?
Hell, a right to privacy is guaranteed in the California constitution yet a similar list of concealed weapons permit holders was published in that state recently.
First, regarding comparison of tax rates - you are comparing the effective rate of capital gains taxes vs. the non-effective rate of income taxes. They are not the same though some think it cute to discuss them as if they were. If you want to argue that any income and/or gains you make when investing your after-tax dollars in capital investments should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income then make that argument but please cut out the nonsense that Romney's capital gains tax rates are somehow related to income tax - something he already paid on his income. You may even get support for treating capital gains the same as ordinary income if you allowed capital losses to be deducted from the equation. However, that was changed back under Clinton and only the first $3,000 of losses can be counted against the current taxes and the rest has to be carried over.
If you think that income on already taxed money that is put at risk to invest in the capital of the nation should be taxed at the same rate as income then make your argument. The 10% vs. 30% numbers you quote given the current tax code is just BS.
Second, the Republicans have not refused to discuss revenue and, in fact, it's the POTUS who has refused to discuss revenue in favor of income tax rates. The Republicans for years have advocated for a simpler tax system - one that broadens the base while lowering rates resulting in higher revenue.
The only legitimate reason for a tax is to raise revenue. We have no business creating a tax system that is designed to introduce artificial market incentives in order to drive societal behavior.
If there's an income tax then everyone with income needs to pay it. If there's a property tax then everyone with property needs to pay it. If there's a sales tax then everyone who buys something needs to pay it.
It's the lack of skin in the game for everyone that makes it so easy for those holding elected office to pit one group against another.
The bigger problem is that we have not and will not go back to zero-based budgeting. Once something ends up in the government it stays. While I'd like to think that just getting rid of the waste and duplication in government programs would solve the problem the reality is that we have promised more to ourselves in benefits than we or even the next couple of generations can deliver.
The only legitimate purpose of a tax is to raise revenue. One can argue the level of revenues any governmental organization needs and the services one expects from the government but it is, in my opinion, improper for the government to attempt to modify societal behavior through the use of financial incentives and disincentives. It is because of this attempt at modifying behavior that we have the disasters we call tax policy and tax law.
Those who claim that Google, or anyone or anything else, is immoral for avoiding tax doesn't understand the tax code. The tax code is overly complicated and typically works along the following lines:
- How much did you bring in last year? - Did you pay a mortgage? O.K., you should deduct x amount from your taxes because we want to encourage mortgages because we want to encourage home ownership. - Did you invest in new equipment for your company? O.K., you should deduct x amount from your taxes because we want to encourage investment in new equipment. - Continue, in the U.S. at least, for another 30 or 40 thousand pages of rules like this.
Those of you who claim "tax avoidance" is immoral are saying that companies and individuals should skip reading through those rules and applying the rules to their situation. You are claiming that people should not accept the incentives that society has put in place for providing what society has asked of you. Those of you who claim that moving business structures from one locality to another in order to benefit the business owners are really arguing against global competition.
If there's an income tax then everyone with income should pay it. If there's a property tax then everyone with property should pay it. If there's a sale's tax then everyone who buys something should pay it.
Stop using the tax code to modify behavior and you'll stop the contortions companies and individuals go through to minimize the amount of tax they pay.
This "spirit of the law" stuff doesn't even make sense.
Are you saying that when the law was written it was written wrong? Are you saying that the legislators wanted one thing yet wrote another?
Or are you saying that everyone is supposed to ignore what the law says and do what they think the "spirit of the law" suggests?
There is a reason that a law is written down, in words, with definitions.
There are a lot of comments that speak of the "spirit of the law" which seems to really mean, "I don't like the way the law is written and, therefore, I don't like the way some entity follows the law and, therefore, I think they're evil the way they ignore the 'spirit of the law'."
If the law is wrong then change it. If you're frustrated at your inability to change it to your liking then run for office or get enough people together to defeat the politicians who vote for the laws.
It is exceedingly unfair, unwise and unrealistic to expect anyone to follow a "spirit of the law" that is counter to the written law. It is neither unpatriotic nor immoral to pay only the taxes one owes and not a penny more.
Actually, in this case, the CEO, CTO and lead investor wanted me on the team. Ultimately we couldn't agree on compensation. I may have been willing to trade on my side regarding compensation but my experience with the HR person told me it would be difficult to do what I wanted to do so I walked. We went through three or four offer/counter-offer deals.
It goes back to my statement - A good HR person always answers, "Let's see how we can make this happen." Someone who is throwing up roadblocks is probably going to get in the way of the rest of the company.
I've often wondered if we could have shown Johnson the results of a fifty year war on poverty if it would have still been pursued.
On the one hand we've created multiple generations dependent on government with no clear avenue of escape. On the other we've created a strong voting bloc for liberal candidates.
While I don't think either of these outcomes was Johnson's goal it's hard to argue that the massive dollars thrown at the problem have achieved the type of economic mobility and freedom originally envisioned.
"The suggestion that a CS degree isn't worthwhile is preposterous." - I agree with this but would also argue that the suggestion that someone who lacks a CS degree isn't worth hiring is also preposterous.
Anyone and any company that is using a check list to weed out resumes is likely glossing over some very qualified candidates.
There are some great home cooks who will rival any culinary institute trained chef. On the other hand, there are a lot of both who suck and can't cook meals I'd want to eat.
I struggle with what comes first - the ability to decompose complex problems or the training. Doesn't the training often just formalize a skill set the potential engineer already possesses? Don't get me wrong, that formalization is valuable in that it teaches the proper vocabulary and communication methods that allow us to effectively interact with one another. But, I'll take the complex problem solver and teach them communications rather than take someone who can speak the language but can't actually solve the problem - or, for that matter, even understand the problem.
I started programming in 1976 while I was still in high school. I went to a university and signed up for computer science but did not do at all well in the non-CS courses - probably because of the arguments I used to get into with the professors. I took as many CS courses as I could and quit school and started working. I retired at 43 in 2004 after ending up running a lot of very large product organizations within a pretty large company. The lack of a degree almost kept me out of the company but I had advocates within the company with whom I had worked who championed my cause.
A VC called me to visit one of their startups in 2006 to see about joining at a fairly high level. Things went well until I interviewed with their head of HR and had the following conversation:
HR - "You left education off of your resume. Why?" Me - "I didn't finish school and felt that a couple years of college weren't important compared to the rest of my resume." HR - "Don't you feel unfulfilled?" Me - "I'm sorry, unfulfilled in what way?" HR - "Don't you feel unfulfilled in not having a degree." Me - "Not really. I'm retired and your investor asked me to come see if I could help out. If it's not a fit then we can both walk away happy." HR - "Well, we'll need a notarized affidavit confirming your level of education." Me - "I'm not claiming to have a degree in anything and I'm willing to say I've had no schooling whatsoever if it will save us this process." HR - "No, we'll need the affidavit." Me - "I swear, I'm not hiding an advanced degree in nuclear engineering. How are you going to confirm that I'm not hiding advanced degrees?" HR - "It's policy."
I never went back but I tell the story often about how the hiring process has degraded to a point of near uselessness. It's extremely difficult to find good talent to begin with and when we do find it the processes and legal jiu-jitsu we force the good applicants to endure makes it very difficult to bring them on board.
The successful companies will continue to be those that get the processes out of the way and hold accountable the individuals who make bad decisions - be they hiring decisions or others.
When you want to hire someone a good HR person will say, "Let me see how we can make that happen." Likewise, when you want to fire someone that good HR person should have the exact same response. Too often the HR and legal departments just become wielders of the veto pen and don't provide good support to the underlying mission of the organization.
As a result, we end up with sadly degraded expectations where hiring becomes a check list of acceptable and non-acceptable gates through which our candidates pass and out the other end of the process is a mealy mash of homogeneity that does little to promote diversity of thought within an organization.
The degree is still important but only as a single component in an overall tapestry that represents any particular candidate.
I understand how insurance works. The problem I have is the government's manipulation of the insurance market to the point of it being unrecognizable as a market. We then, collectively, complain about the high cost of health insurance without recognizing the underlying causes.
I guess I could have saved my keyboard some more and recognized that I wouldn't get a response to the underlying issue of mandates and lack of interstate competition in the insurance market.
Until we're willing to tackle the issue of the health insurance market being a wish-list to cover anything we can remotely consider medically related then we're going to continue to misread one of the components to ever-rising health costs.
Can you name the critical Obama policy bills the GOP successfully filibustered? After successfully filibustering said bills, what attempts did Obama make to lobby moderate Republicans to vote for cloture to end the filibuster OR what changes did Obama and the Democrats make to the bills to make them palatable to all parties and bi-partisan?
Harry Reid did change the generally accepted method of introducing bills for a vote practically eliminating the ability to debate and amend the bills. This action changed the Senate from a deliberative body that could compromise to one that could only vote up or down on any particular bill. What surprising result sprang up from this? Oh, yeah, the minority party had enough votes (41) to prevent cloture and, therefore, a vote on the bill.
It takes too sides to reach a compromise. Introducing bills in a manner where debate and amendments are disallowed doesn't exactly create a playing field where compromise and bi-partisanship can occur.
The issue isn't related to health insurance or health care IN GENERAL. The issue is in the specifics.
Let's start with today's market. My wife and I just moved from California to Arizona and had to change health insurance policies because of the lack of an interstate market. That's O.K. for us because the mandates in Arizona are fewer than in California so a plan with the same level of coverage and lower deductibles costs about 50% as much as it does in California.
When we talk about the desire to have everyone with health care coverage we use the examples of cancer, vehicle accidents and other types of catastrophic health issues that can easily bankrupt someone without health insurance.
However, when we talk about the implementation of health care coverage we include birth control, Viagra, wellness checks and other non-catastrophic issues. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to debate the efficacy and practicality of things like birth control and wellness checks but these aren't the things we generally discuss when we talk about health insurance coverage.
The difference between my California and Arizona plans is the list of mandates required by each state. California requires that substance abuse treatment have the same level of coverage as other health issues. So, a formerly $6,000,000 policy has to make available $6,000,000 in substance abuse treatment. If California wants to have a public policy debate about substance abuse treatments then they can have that debate. Unfortunately, the debate really never happens. Typically, a special-interest goes for their own coverage issue and get it passed resulting in a market like California where there's something on the order of 40-50 mandates for health insurance coverage.
As a consumer of insurance I don't want to pay for the things I will never use - birth control, substance abuse treatment, etc. But that's not how the health-insurance market works - everyone has to pay something so that everyone is covered for anything that might happen.
So, what in the Affordable Care Act will raise prices? How about these two:
- Requiring coverage for children until the age of 26. - Having no coverage limits (all of a sudden, California's substance abuse mandate requires health insurance to cover an unlimited dollar amount for substance abuse).
The consumption tax only makes sense for those who are working.
My wife and I worked very hard during our lives and saved a lot of money. Much of that money we paid upwards of 50% in income taxes (federal, state and local). We didn't get a pension with our jobs and our retirement fund is precisely the amount of money we have in savings.
Now that we've paid tax on all of our income and saved our money you're suggesting that we now pay a consumption tax that's large enough to cover all that would be lost with the elimination of an income tax. We are not a fixed income retirement couple - we are a zero income retirement couple living off of our savings. The only income we get is dividend and interest income - with effective interest rates currently at or below zero.
We need a fundamental tax overhaul:
If there's an income tax then everyone who has income should pay it. If there's a property tax then everyone with property should pay it. If there's a sales tax then everyone who buys something should pay it.
I believe that much of the mess we're in is because we stopped treating taxes as a source of income and started treating taxes as a method of societal control with incentives and punishments. Eliminate deductions, go to a flat rate on income and a flat rate on property taxes.
The town in which I used to live, San Carlos, CA, implemented a parcel fee (an addition to the property tax). New taxes in California require a 2/3rds vote to pass. The town exempted anyone over 65 from paying the tax but still allowed them to vote for it. People talk about Proposition 13 destroying the property tax base in California because it freezes the assessed value of a house at the purchase price and sets the base property tax rate at that value. In the twelve years I owned that house in California my property tax bill went up over 50% because of the additional parcel fees. Pretty much each one was created by one special interest group going up against others. With the parcel fee I described above they didn't have enough renters (non-property owners) to vote for it so they exempted an age group in order to get it passed.
We've gone down a very dangerous path of pitting one group against another - vote for someone else to be taxed and vote for benefits for me.
I did my first programming on an HP-67 handheld calculator when they first came out around 1972 when I was 12. My dad brought one home from work (NASA) to show it to me and I had fun with it on the weekends - even got to write some programs he would use in the office. That first exposure to programming got me excited but I could never afford a machine of my own.
When the TRS-80 was announced I was excited and had to save my money up to be able to afford it. I remember putting $100 down to reserve my machine and then had to wait eight weeks for it to show up.
The "computer stores" at the time were very interesting to me. The ones where I grew up near Annapolis usually looked like a hoarder's den with electronics, parts and manuals spread all over the place. Most of the people I knew who had home computers back then were quite comfortable opening them up and "fixing" them. That was just part of the experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse rights with power.
The U.S. constitution does not confer rights to the people - it restricts the power of the government from infringing on those rights.
The U.S. constitution does confer power to the government, of which the President is the executive. He may exercise those specific powers as long as he does not infringe any of the rights held by the people.
The president has no more rights than any other person.
The president may face more potential threats than you or I but that doesn't change the fundamental right of self-defense that you and I retain. Additionally, it is inappropriate for the government to determine an appropriate level of self-defense need for me just as it's inappropriate for me to choose the president's.
The larger argument here is that if an AR-15 is valid as a personal defense weapon (as defined by Homeland Security in a recent RFP) for government agents then why isn't it a valid personal defense weapon for the people.
The arms the people have had the right to bear have always matched the basic arms the military has employed. Muskets in the 18th century, lever action rifles and revolvers in the 19th and semi-automatic firearms in the 20th. It wasn't until very recently that the concept of divorcing military-style firearms from non-military use became fashionable.
The second amendment does NOT give the people the right to keep and bear arms. The language of the 2nd amendment is not one that grants a right to the people, it is language that restricts the power of the federal government. The power that is restricted is the power of the government to infringe a natural right already possessed by the people.
The natural right to keep and bear arms would exist without the second amendment. From United States v. Cruikshank, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
The Bill of Rights, of which the second amendment is a part, identifies its purpose as further restricting the power of the federal government. From the pre-amble to Bill of Rights, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The declaratory and restrictive clauses in the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of the government. While the government has certain powers it was thought that explicit restrictions of those powers was necessary for specific rights.
The 1st - It is not a right to free speech but rather a restriction on the federal government, ..."Congress shall make no law..."
The 2nd - discussed above, "...shall not be infringed"
The 3rd - "No soldier shall..."
The 4th - "...shall not be violated..."
The Bill of Rights places restrictions on the powers of the government to prevent specific infringements of particular rights of the people. It does not grant rights to the people, it merely recognizes rights already in existence.
I don't quite see it like that.
He's actually more like Clinton than Bush when it comes to responding. Clinton used cruise missiles and Obama uses drones. Though drone attacks started under Bush, Obama has increased their usage. Clinton relied much too heavily on cruise missiles rather than other tools available to him in responding to crises. Many of the troublemakers accepted that they could do something and the cost would be a cruise missile that would be unlikely to find them specifically. Sadam Hussein said as much after he was captured - he believed that that his failure to acknowledge the weapons inspectors would only result in some more cruise missiles and that the U.S. was bluffing about an actual invasion. Clinton's response to Bin Laden in Afghanistan was also cruise missiles. Bush changed the rules of the game, for better or worse, by committing ground troops. Obama appears to be flowing back into Clinton's strategy of using drones tactically rather than committing ground troops. That's why I believe that Obama's military strategy is more akin to Clinton's than Bush's.
I disagree with the characterization of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan as being brazen. Imagine that your entire national security team has been coming to you for months claiming that they have finally tracked down Bin Laden. The intelligence infrastructure has placed assets on the ground in houses near where Bin Laden is believed to be and they also believe that Bin Laden is in the house. The only real voice against going after him in Pakistan comes from your Vice President. You ran for office highlighting that Bush's failure to capture or kill Bin Laden hurt the stature of the United States and, unlike Bush, you would bring him to justice. You also turned over responsibility for the final recommendation to the head of the CIA and he comes back with a "let's go for it" kind of recommendation.
What would have been brazen would have been to ignore all of that and NOT go after him.
What would have been even more brazen would have been to go in and taken Bin Laden alive and never say a word about it.
The unintended consequences of sex-offender registration and publication continue to ripple throughout society.
It's easy to think, I'm not a pedophile or rapist so I never have to worry about it. On the other hand, have you ever urinated in a public area such as a golf course.
It used to be a citation for urinating in public. Now it's indecent exposure and, upon conviction, requires registration as a sex offender which not only causes your name to be published but restricts where you can live. Some states (http://www.shazamlaw.com/Articles/Colorado-Bill-Aims-to-Stop-Sex-Offender-Registration-for-Public-Urination-Streaking.shtml) are working on changing their laws.
I play golf and I've had to warn fellow players to be quite careful that they not be seen while taking a break else risk becoming registered sex offenders.
While it's an interesting discussion regarding whether this information should be available via FOIA or subsequently published, what is lost is that the registration list shouldn't even exist.
The purpose of registration, especially when combined with making the data public, serves to inhibit and, therefore, infringe on the fundamental right.
You may not agree with the right but there is no valid governmental reason to require registration of something for which one has a fundamental right. I live in a state that does not have registration and most states do not. It's fascinating to me that most people just assume that guns should be registered and, therefore, the discussion is on publication of the information rather than on registration itself.
Studies on the other hand (one highlighted here: http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html) show that it is better to resist a violent crime with a gun:
12-17% of gun-armed resisters were injured. Those who offered no resistance were twice as likely to be injured (gratuitously) and those who resisted without a gun were three times as likely to be injured.
The base source for the numbers comes from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and Criminal Victimization surveys.
People have a tendency to behave in ways that give them the most recognition, whether that recognition is stature, monetary reward or both.
For whatever reason prosecutors seem to be rewarded based on a win percentage, which is objective, vs. a justice served percentage which is subjective. Combine this reward system with an overcrowded judicial system and we end up with a bastardized incentive system that rewards over-charging suspects and attempting to get the suspect to plead down to a lesser charge. Either the person deserves to be tried for the higher charge or not. Using the potential of serious punishment in order to convince a defendant to accept a lesser charge does not serve justice.
I think Elliott Spitzer was a great example of this type of prosecutorial abuse. He developed a model where he went after many people who had committed no crime but were willing to plead down to lesser crimes to avoid the potential punishment and drawn-out legal process of facing a daunting legal challenge. Spitzer's final year or so when he was getting ready to run for governor was quite disgusting in that there were many people indicted during his run for governorship and the charges were dropped after the election because they weren't fully baked. I've argued that prosecutors should not be allowed to run for another office until at least two years after their last stint as a prosecutor to avoid the conflict of interest associated with running up prosecutorial win rates while running for another office.
I saw Spitzer on his CNN show after his fall from grace and he said as much when he promoted, in order to stop behavior with which he disagreed, of indicting a group of people for a crime. He said that they would never have to get a conviction because the mere threat would be enough to stop the behavior. This is a person willing to abuse his power in order to change the otherwise legal behavior of people with whom he disagreed.
Ted Stevens (Senator Internet Pipes) had prosecutors who were sanctioned and had his conviction overturned as a result. Unfortunately, his conviction was overturned after his death and cost him an election. Whether you liked Senator Internet Pipes or not doesn't change the fact that using federal prosecutors to intimidate citizens is unacceptable.
These aren't the only two cases. I seem to recall a number of prosecutorial misconduct cases over the past few years and it's a crying shame that it continues and costs so much pain for ordinary citizens.
Combine prosecutorial misconduct with the avalanche of new laws and regulations coming our way and we can expect this trend to continue mainly because we never know when we've run afoul of some law or regulation with which we are unfamiliar.
The only legal definitions of assault-weapons relate to cosmetic features and not functional capabilities or lethality.
However, if I'm going to use a gun for self-defense (I don't hunt) then I want one that is designed to stop people quickly. If there are lots of threats then I want to be able to stop lots of people.
The comment about "designed for one purpose - to kill lots of other people quickly" as a justification for banning makes no sense to me. I want an efficient firearm to stop any potential threat. Your description of so-called assault-weapons is, to me, a testament to its efficacy as a self-defense firearm.
An interesting phrase, "...military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned IMO."
In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court held that short-barreled shotguns could be banned because the military had no use for such a firearm. In Heller the Supreme Court held that guns in common use could not be banned. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country and the fact that it is a military derivative seems to make it even more protected (though I would argue that the modern AR-15 is not really a military derivative from a functional perspective). The AR-15 has a different hammer and trigger mechanism and the lower receiver is designed so that those components are not interchangeable with the fully-automatic military version.
The primary issue from a political perspective is that the two guns look alike and that's why we hear about banning "military style" weapons. If the AR-15 was truly a military weapon we would not need the "style" modifier in the drive to ban them.
More interesting to me, though, is the lack of recognition in a technical discussion forum that a market is likely to coalesce around efficiency. I would not expect a civilian firearm market that is seeking efficiency and ease of use would differ that markedly from a military firearm market that is seeking efficiency and ease of use especially considering that it is often the same manufacturer. The fact that the rifles share cosmetic features and the optics, magazines, slings and other accoutrements are interchangeable should surprise no one who expects efficiency in the market. Those shared features, though, in no way make the civilian AR-15 the same from a functional perspective as the military version.
What's more troubling is that law enforcement is exempt from the restrictions that are being passed. The reason for this is simple - the legislatures recognize that these firearms are effective tools when facing today's criminal threat. If I'm in a situation where I need to call the police because of a particularly nasty situation they would be bringing the same exact firearm that I am prohibited from owning. The police will show up after an indeterminate time to a situation where I am prohibited from using the same firearm they are bring. I've been trained with the firearm. The firearm is clearly found to be effective. Yet, I have to wait for someone else to show up in order to deploy the effective firearm.
The training part reminds me of the other reason this firearm platform has become the most popular - the firearm is operationally similar to the firearm with which military personnel have trained. When they leave the military and want to purchase a rifle they are more likely to gravitate to one which seems familiar to them.
I refuse to accept your claim that "we have failed at our responsibility to safely possess firearms." There are more firearms today than at any time in our history. There are more firearm owners. The tragedies that we have witnessed are not because of the existence of the firearm but to the reluctance we have toward forcing people into mental health treatment.
I refuse to give up my natural right to self-defense because defective humans exist.
First, the registration process shouldn't even exist - there's no practical or logical reason for it.
Secondly, we care enough about privacy that publishing the information about what videos you rent is illegal under federal law. We care enough about privacy that medical records are protected by federal law. We care enough about privacy that abortion is a constitutionally protected procedure.
Why shouldn't gun owners who are required to register (for no good reason) not have an expectation of privacy?
Hell, a right to privacy is guaranteed in the California constitution yet a similar list of concealed weapons permit holders was published in that state recently.
Why would the state require registration of guns?
In their December 15th editorial they called for an assault weapons ban.
I think that advocates banning guns.
First, regarding comparison of tax rates - you are comparing the effective rate of capital gains taxes vs. the non-effective rate of income taxes. They are not the same though some think it cute to discuss them as if they were. If you want to argue that any income and/or gains you make when investing your after-tax dollars in capital investments should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income then make that argument but please cut out the nonsense that Romney's capital gains tax rates are somehow related to income tax - something he already paid on his income. You may even get support for treating capital gains the same as ordinary income if you allowed capital losses to be deducted from the equation. However, that was changed back under Clinton and only the first $3,000 of losses can be counted against the current taxes and the rest has to be carried over.
If you think that income on already taxed money that is put at risk to invest in the capital of the nation should be taxed at the same rate as income then make your argument. The 10% vs. 30% numbers you quote given the current tax code is just BS.
Second, the Republicans have not refused to discuss revenue and, in fact, it's the POTUS who has refused to discuss revenue in favor of income tax rates. The Republicans for years have advocated for a simpler tax system - one that broadens the base while lowering rates resulting in higher revenue.
The only legitimate reason for a tax is to raise revenue. We have no business creating a tax system that is designed to introduce artificial market incentives in order to drive societal behavior.
If there's an income tax then everyone with income needs to pay it.
If there's a property tax then everyone with property needs to pay it.
If there's a sales tax then everyone who buys something needs to pay it.
It's the lack of skin in the game for everyone that makes it so easy for those holding elected office to pit one group against another.
The bigger problem is that we have not and will not go back to zero-based budgeting. Once something ends up in the government it stays. While I'd like to think that just getting rid of the waste and duplication in government programs would solve the problem the reality is that we have promised more to ourselves in benefits than we or even the next couple of generations can deliver.
The only legitimate purpose of a tax is to raise revenue. One can argue the level of revenues any governmental organization needs and the services one expects from the government but it is, in my opinion, improper for the government to attempt to modify societal behavior through the use of financial incentives and disincentives. It is because of this attempt at modifying behavior that we have the disasters we call tax policy and tax law.
Those who claim that Google, or anyone or anything else, is immoral for avoiding tax doesn't understand the tax code. The tax code is overly complicated and typically works along the following lines:
- How much did you bring in last year?
- Did you pay a mortgage? O.K., you should deduct x amount from your taxes because we want to encourage mortgages because we want to encourage home ownership.
- Did you invest in new equipment for your company? O.K., you should deduct x amount from your taxes because we want to encourage investment in new equipment.
- Continue, in the U.S. at least, for another 30 or 40 thousand pages of rules like this.
Those of you who claim "tax avoidance" is immoral are saying that companies and individuals should skip reading through those rules and applying the rules to their situation. You are claiming that people should not accept the incentives that society has put in place for providing what society has asked of you. Those of you who claim that moving business structures from one locality to another in order to benefit the business owners are really arguing against global competition.
If there's an income tax then everyone with income should pay it.
If there's a property tax then everyone with property should pay it.
If there's a sale's tax then everyone who buys something should pay it.
Stop using the tax code to modify behavior and you'll stop the contortions companies and individuals go through to minimize the amount of tax they pay.
This "spirit of the law" stuff doesn't even make sense.
Are you saying that when the law was written it was written wrong? Are you saying that the legislators wanted one thing yet wrote another?
Or are you saying that everyone is supposed to ignore what the law says and do what they think the "spirit of the law" suggests?
There is a reason that a law is written down, in words, with definitions.
There are a lot of comments that speak of the "spirit of the law" which seems to really mean, "I don't like the way the law is written and, therefore, I don't like the way some entity follows the law and, therefore, I think they're evil the way they ignore the 'spirit of the law'."
If the law is wrong then change it. If you're frustrated at your inability to change it to your liking then run for office or get enough people together to defeat the politicians who vote for the laws.
It is exceedingly unfair, unwise and unrealistic to expect anyone to follow a "spirit of the law" that is counter to the written law. It is neither unpatriotic nor immoral to pay only the taxes one owes and not a penny more.
Actually, in this case, the CEO, CTO and lead investor wanted me on the team. Ultimately we couldn't agree on compensation. I may have been willing to trade on my side regarding compensation but my experience with the HR person told me it would be difficult to do what I wanted to do so I walked. We went through three or four offer/counter-offer deals.
It goes back to my statement - A good HR person always answers, "Let's see how we can make this happen." Someone who is throwing up roadblocks is probably going to get in the way of the rest of the company.
I've often wondered if we could have shown Johnson the results of a fifty year war on poverty if it would have still been pursued.
On the one hand we've created multiple generations dependent on government with no clear avenue of escape. On the other we've created a strong voting bloc for liberal candidates.
While I don't think either of these outcomes was Johnson's goal it's hard to argue that the massive dollars thrown at the problem have achieved the type of economic mobility and freedom originally envisioned.
"The suggestion that a CS degree isn't worthwhile is preposterous." - I agree with this but would also argue that the suggestion that someone who lacks a CS degree isn't worth hiring is also preposterous.
Anyone and any company that is using a check list to weed out resumes is likely glossing over some very qualified candidates.
There are some great home cooks who will rival any culinary institute trained chef. On the other hand, there are a lot of both who suck and can't cook meals I'd want to eat.
I struggle with what comes first - the ability to decompose complex problems or the training. Doesn't the training often just formalize a skill set the potential engineer already possesses? Don't get me wrong, that formalization is valuable in that it teaches the proper vocabulary and communication methods that allow us to effectively interact with one another. But, I'll take the complex problem solver and teach them communications rather than take someone who can speak the language but can't actually solve the problem - or, for that matter, even understand the problem.
I started programming in 1976 while I was still in high school. I went to a university and signed up for computer science but did not do at all well in the non-CS courses - probably because of the arguments I used to get into with the professors. I took as many CS courses as I could and quit school and started working. I retired at 43 in 2004 after ending up running a lot of very large product organizations within a pretty large company. The lack of a degree almost kept me out of the company but I had advocates within the company with whom I had worked who championed my cause.
A VC called me to visit one of their startups in 2006 to see about joining at a fairly high level. Things went well until I interviewed with their head of HR and had the following conversation:
HR - "You left education off of your resume. Why?"
Me - "I didn't finish school and felt that a couple years of college weren't important compared to the rest of my resume."
HR - "Don't you feel unfulfilled?"
Me - "I'm sorry, unfulfilled in what way?"
HR - "Don't you feel unfulfilled in not having a degree."
Me - "Not really. I'm retired and your investor asked me to come see if I could help out. If it's not a fit then we can both walk away happy."
HR - "Well, we'll need a notarized affidavit confirming your level of education."
Me - "I'm not claiming to have a degree in anything and I'm willing to say I've had no schooling whatsoever if it will save us this process."
HR - "No, we'll need the affidavit."
Me - "I swear, I'm not hiding an advanced degree in nuclear engineering. How are you going to confirm that I'm not hiding advanced degrees?"
HR - "It's policy."
I never went back but I tell the story often about how the hiring process has degraded to a point of near uselessness. It's extremely difficult to find good talent to begin with and when we do find it the processes and legal jiu-jitsu we force the good applicants to endure makes it very difficult to bring them on board.
The successful companies will continue to be those that get the processes out of the way and hold accountable the individuals who make bad decisions - be they hiring decisions or others.
When you want to hire someone a good HR person will say, "Let me see how we can make that happen." Likewise, when you want to fire someone that good HR person should have the exact same response. Too often the HR and legal departments just become wielders of the veto pen and don't provide good support to the underlying mission of the organization.
As a result, we end up with sadly degraded expectations where hiring becomes a check list of acceptable and non-acceptable gates through which our candidates pass and out the other end of the process is a mealy mash of homogeneity that does little to promote diversity of thought within an organization.
The degree is still important but only as a single component in an overall tapestry that represents any particular candidate.
I understand how insurance works. The problem I have is the government's manipulation of the insurance market to the point of it being unrecognizable as a market. We then, collectively, complain about the high cost of health insurance without recognizing the underlying causes.
I guess I could have saved my keyboard some more and recognized that I wouldn't get a response to the underlying issue of mandates and lack of interstate competition in the insurance market.
Until we're willing to tackle the issue of the health insurance market being a wish-list to cover anything we can remotely consider medically related then we're going to continue to misread one of the components to ever-rising health costs.
Can you name the critical Obama policy bills the GOP successfully filibustered? After successfully filibustering said bills, what attempts did Obama make to lobby moderate Republicans to vote for cloture to end the filibuster OR what changes did Obama and the Democrats make to the bills to make them palatable to all parties and bi-partisan?
Harry Reid did change the generally accepted method of introducing bills for a vote practically eliminating the ability to debate and amend the bills. This action changed the Senate from a deliberative body that could compromise to one that could only vote up or down on any particular bill. What surprising result sprang up from this? Oh, yeah, the minority party had enough votes (41) to prevent cloture and, therefore, a vote on the bill.
It takes too sides to reach a compromise. Introducing bills in a manner where debate and amendments are disallowed doesn't exactly create a playing field where compromise and bi-partisanship can occur.
The issue isn't related to health insurance or health care IN GENERAL. The issue is in the specifics.
Let's start with today's market. My wife and I just moved from California to Arizona and had to change health insurance policies because of the lack of an interstate market. That's O.K. for us because the mandates in Arizona are fewer than in California so a plan with the same level of coverage and lower deductibles costs about 50% as much as it does in California.
When we talk about the desire to have everyone with health care coverage we use the examples of cancer, vehicle accidents and other types of catastrophic health issues that can easily bankrupt someone without health insurance.
However, when we talk about the implementation of health care coverage we include birth control, Viagra, wellness checks and other non-catastrophic issues. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to debate the efficacy and practicality of things like birth control and wellness checks but these aren't the things we generally discuss when we talk about health insurance coverage.
The difference between my California and Arizona plans is the list of mandates required by each state. California requires that substance abuse treatment have the same level of coverage as other health issues. So, a formerly $6,000,000 policy has to make available $6,000,000 in substance abuse treatment. If California wants to have a public policy debate about substance abuse treatments then they can have that debate. Unfortunately, the debate really never happens. Typically, a special-interest goes for their own coverage issue and get it passed resulting in a market like California where there's something on the order of 40-50 mandates for health insurance coverage.
As a consumer of insurance I don't want to pay for the things I will never use - birth control, substance abuse treatment, etc. But that's not how the health-insurance market works - everyone has to pay something so that everyone is covered for anything that might happen.
So, what in the Affordable Care Act will raise prices? How about these two:
- Requiring coverage for children until the age of 26.
- Having no coverage limits (all of a sudden, California's substance abuse mandate requires health insurance to cover an unlimited dollar amount for substance abuse).
The consumption tax only makes sense for those who are working.
My wife and I worked very hard during our lives and saved a lot of money. Much of that money we paid upwards of 50% in income taxes (federal, state and local). We didn't get a pension with our jobs and our retirement fund is precisely the amount of money we have in savings.
Now that we've paid tax on all of our income and saved our money you're suggesting that we now pay a consumption tax that's large enough to cover all that would be lost with the elimination of an income tax. We are not a fixed income retirement couple - we are a zero income retirement couple living off of our savings. The only income we get is dividend and interest income - with effective interest rates currently at or below zero.
We need a fundamental tax overhaul:
If there's an income tax then everyone who has income should pay it.
If there's a property tax then everyone with property should pay it.
If there's a sales tax then everyone who buys something should pay it.
I believe that much of the mess we're in is because we stopped treating taxes as a source of income and started treating taxes as a method of societal control with incentives and punishments. Eliminate deductions, go to a flat rate on income and a flat rate on property taxes.
The town in which I used to live, San Carlos, CA, implemented a parcel fee (an addition to the property tax). New taxes in California require a 2/3rds vote to pass. The town exempted anyone over 65 from paying the tax but still allowed them to vote for it. People talk about Proposition 13 destroying the property tax base in California because it freezes the assessed value of a house at the purchase price and sets the base property tax rate at that value. In the twelve years I owned that house in California my property tax bill went up over 50% because of the additional parcel fees. Pretty much each one was created by one special interest group going up against others. With the parcel fee I described above they didn't have enough renters (non-property owners) to vote for it so they exempted an age group in order to get it passed.
We've gone down a very dangerous path of pitting one group against another - vote for someone else to be taxed and vote for benefits for me.
I did my first programming on an HP-67 handheld calculator when they first came out around 1972 when I was 12. My dad brought one home from work (NASA) to show it to me and I had fun with it on the weekends - even got to write some programs he would use in the office. That first exposure to programming got me excited but I could never afford a machine of my own.
When the TRS-80 was announced I was excited and had to save my money up to be able to afford it. I remember putting $100 down to reserve my machine and then had to wait eight weeks for it to show up.
The "computer stores" at the time were very interesting to me. The ones where I grew up near Annapolis usually looked like a hoarder's den with electronics, parts and manuals spread all over the place. Most of the people I knew who had home computers back then were quite comfortable opening them up and "fixing" them. That was just part of the experience.
Uh, the correct term?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Barefaced_lie