I’ve been pro-gun rights my entire life. I’ve never owned a gun, but I know the basics about how to load one, aim it, and fire it, and I’m an okay shot if I take my time. And I’ve never had a problem with someone else owning them, whether it be for hunting, for recreation, or for self defense.

For years, that has been my only remaining conservative position. I’ve seen the light, so to speak, on taxes, health care, gay marriage, climate change … the list goes on and on. But I’ve consistently supported gun rights.

That changed yesterday.

Read the rest of this entry »

There’s been a flurry of posts on Twitter telling people that it’s illegal to Instagram their ballot. I Am Not A Lawyer, and This Is Not Legal Advice, but here are some thoughts on the matter, as it applies to New York. Here’s the relevant legal code:

§ 17-130. Misdemeanor in relation to elections. Any person who:

…

9. Having lawfully entered a voting booth with a voter, requests, persuades or induces such voter to vote any particular ballot or for any particular candidate, or makes or keeps any memorandum of anything occurring within the booth, or directly or indirectly, reveals to another the name of any candidate voted for by such voter; or,

10. Shows his ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any person so as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show the same; or,

Number 9, “any person who … makes or keeps any memorandum of anything occurring within the booth” seems to be the thing that has most people spun up, but that doesn’t apply if it’s your own ballot. Just consider the end of the paragraph: “or directly or indirectly, reveals to another the name of any candidate voted for by such voter”. If this applied to the person casting the vote, you wouldn’t be able to tell anyone who you voted for. Clearly a violation of free speech. No, this applies to election officials who enter the voting booth with a voter, to read for them, help them work the machine, et cetera. That’s why the paragraph starts with “having lawfully entered a voting booth with a voter”.

Number 10 is more clear-cut. “Any person who shows his ballot after it is prepared for voting” means the person casting the vote, not somebody helping them. I think the intent of this is to prevent electioneering inside the polling place. They don’t want you waving your ballot around saying “this is who I voted for, and you should vote for them, too.” That is illegal to do within one-hundred feet of a polling place. Also, the law might be designed to prevent people from begin bribed for their vote, in which case preventing any photo of a ballot makes sense.

And will ballots that show up on Instagram be thrown out? I don’t see how that’s possible. There’s nothing on a ballot to tie it to a particular voter, so throwing out ballots would allow people to cancel out other people’s votes by taking a picture of their ballot. That would be punishing the victim.

Again, I Am Not a Lawyer, and This Is Not Legal Advice. There might not be anything wrong with Instagraming your own ballot, but for safety’s sake, why risk it?

One of the biggest problems conservatives have with Obamacare – other than the fact that Obama introduced it – is that it forces you to purchase something. The Supreme Court actually sided with this line or argument. The Government doesn’t have the power to force you to buy an iPad or a car, and they don’t have the power to force you to purchase health care, either.

The Supreme Court realized this is bullshit, of course, and sidestepped the issue by declaring the mandate a tax. This is fine, but I want to look at the reasoning behind “the Government can’t force me to buy something.”

That is clearly, plainly wrong. The Government has been forcing us to buy things from the very beginning. Let’s take, for example, the military. The Government forces us to buy, through our taxes, machine guns and tanks and fighter jets and bombs. The Government forced us to buy the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The Government forced us to buy those porno scanners the TSA uses at airports. You know, the ones that don’t work and might give you cancer? Yeah, we paid for those.

The Government forces us to buy a retirement plan … it’s called Social Security.

And the Government foces us to buy health care … for other people. It’s called Medicaid.

The reason we’re forced to buy these things is that they’re for the common good. Our country as a whole is safer when we have a military guarding our borders. Our nation is safer when we have people stopping terrorists from hijacking planes … or would be if said people weren’t complete fuck-ups. Our nation is better off with the safety nets we’ve set up for the elderly.

And you know what? Health care is a national good. We are all better off when we all have coverage. You, yes you, are going to get sick some day, and you’re going to need treatment. If you live long enough, you are going to get cancer, or have a heart attack, or develop diabetes, or … something. Because we all do.

We already subsidize people without health insurance … we just do it in the stupidest way possible. We send them to an emergency room, where they receive free care … free to them, at least. Taxpayers still foot the bill. Under Obamacare, people who can afford insurance will have to buy it, or pay a tax to offset the cost of their eventual heath care costs. Health care costs that they will have.

This is going to lower costs, not raise them. And it’s going to penalize free riders. This is about as fair and equitable as a health care system could be, unless we went to single-payer.

What was that about class size not mattering? Also, doesn’t Photoshop have spell check yet?

George Zimmerman, who has admitted to shooting and killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, has been charged with second degree murder.

Everything else aside, this is a great example of the power of free speech, and free speech on the internet in particular. If this had happened a few years ago the entire thing would have been swept under the run. If bloggers hasn’t picked up the story, it would have died with the police’ perfunctory investigation. Twitter hadn’t exploded with cried for justice, Zimmerman would never have faced a jury.

Speech is powerful, and the internet gives us all a voice. Welcome to the future.

Seriously, Rick Santorum has the best marketing team in politics. I’d totally go see this movie.

But the fact that he thinks this is real? The fact that he thinks Obama is going to turn America into The Hunger Games in a little less than two years? Jesus.

(via io9)

I think I posted this already, but … well, it’s awesome, so here it is again.

The Atlantic Wire reports that Virginia Governor and professional asshole Bob McDonnell is backing down from his “state-mandated rape” plan:

It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure. 

Too little, too late, as far as I”m concerned. This dipshit has no place in public police, or in civilized company.

Rachel Maddow is hosting a video of Georgia State Representative Yasmin Neal discussing her new bill, which reasonably, necessarily subjects men who want vasectomies to the same kind of scrutiny that women who want or need an abortion require. It’s brilliant:

Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies. It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States. Women, our bodies, and what we do with it are always up for debate.

This bill has been drafted for all women who have the wherewithal to choose. The day has come where men should feel the same pressure and invasion of privacy that women have faced for years. I have introduced this legislation because it is the purpose of  the General Assembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of the men of this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.

This bill states that vasectomies can be performed to avert the death of a man or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man. This bill mimics the abortion bills throughout the nation, and just like the abortion bills interfere with a woman’s right to choose, it’s only fair that the General Assembly debate the men’s right to choose, as well.

Bravo.

(via Slacktivist)