an Uncensored Mind – Page 32 – Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.

What 2nd Amendment?

First, make rules that only apply to the ruled. Then force rightspeak onto the public, silencing any dissent. Finally, disarm any who dissent anyway. Now you’ve got control.

Farfetched? Hardly. All three steps are already in the works, and the last one is a doozy:

H.R.127 – Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

This proposed law requires a psychological evaluation before you are licensed to own a gun, the standards of which are left to the Attorney General; it could be that just wanting a gun makes one “psychologically unfit”. The evaluation can even require interviews of current and former spouses, as well as at least 2 family members. I wonder what will happen when a spiteful ex-wife wants revenge over a bitter divorce or custody battle, or is simply anti-gun?

The law also requires a licensed gun owner to maintain an insurance policy, “…that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person…”. It doesn’t say what limits of liability are required; I wonder what a private unlimited liability policy that will cost? The AG will issue a policy for $800/year, but with so few Americans able to handle an emergency $500 expenditure how many do you think will be able to afford to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms? On top of all this, the penalties for violating the license requirements of this statute is a fine of up to $150,000 and a prison sentence of up to 25 years – even for unintentional technical violations.

The clear intent of this law, at least to me, is to make firearm ownership so onerous and risky as to effectively gut the 2nd Amendment – all the while having exactly zero impact on criminals.

Thanks, Rep. Lee [D-TX-18]; I feel safer already.

Rightspeak

Congress wants to change the protections offered under Section 230 of the Telecommunications act – but not in a way you might think (or want). While the previous administration wanted to remove the protections afforded by Section 230 to minimize potentially biased censorship, the current administration instead wants to modify these protections to force more censorship:

Senate Democrats propose Section 230 reform bill to hold Big Tech ‘accountable’ for content

The authors (at least one of them) of this reform have taken the position that Internet service providers must protect their users from “unlawful [and] discriminatory conduct”. I disagree; if social media users truly post “unlawful” content then it is up to law enforcement to take legal action and protect the affected users. When such moderation is left to the potentially biased view of social media providers then we face a risk of the minority voice being extinguished.

The idea that Internet service providers should be held civilly and criminally liable for speech that they do not moderate on their platforms is like saying cities should be held liable for what their residents say in the public square. If someone posts something illegal on social media, it is only they who should be held accountable – the same as if they said it in the public square. Otherwise it should be left to the users whether or not they want to listen – again, just as in public. Making social media companies liable for the speech of their users will only add legitimacy to their biased censorship of the minority voice.

I agree that Section 230 needs to be changed, but it needs to be changed to enhance free speech – not cripple it.

The entitlement doctrine

Have critical thinking skills been eliminated entirely from our public school curriculum?

Why Did It Take a Pandemic to Show How Much Unpaid Work Women Do?

“Cleaning the house and taking care of children has real economic value, and women have been doing it for free for too long.”

Yes – cleaning house and taking care of children has real economic value – but only to the people whose house is being cleaned and whose children are being raised. Why should I pay to have someone clean their house? Do I get to live there? Why should I pay to raise their children? Are they going to mow my lawn? Are these children going to take care of me in my old age?

And as far as women claiming that they have been singled out for this specific work – well, in this day and age that’s a matter to be discussed with the members of their immediate household. But even if the housework and childcare is unevenly divided, what about the other chores that have typically been relegated to men? I shoveled snow for 2 full days this week – that work, too, has real economic value; why should I not to be paid for it? Once again, the same argument applies: if the work only benefits the worker, then the result of the work is their only pay. Don’t ask someone else to pay you again.

Arguing that women (or men) should be paid for work from which only they benefit is like a burglar insisting that he is “earning” his loot by performing the work necessary to obtain it. The flaw in logic is the same: the “work” is of value to no one but the “worker”. If work is to be paid, then it must be productive work that benefits the payer.

Yes – raising children is both expensive and time consuming work. If you don’t want the trouble and expense, then don’t have children. But if you do, don’t ask others to pay; they are your problem, not theirs. And if the work in your household is not evenly divided – by task or equivalent economic value – that is something for you to address with the members of your household, not the American taxpayer.

Tyranny by any other name….

…smells just as bad.

No matter what you think of Rep. Marjorie Greene’s current or past beliefs, comments or social media posts, she was duly elected to her congressional seat by the residents of her district in Georgia. She deserves the right to represent her constituents and to fully participate in the legislative process, irrespective of how you view her personally.

In addition, the minority party in Congress – being allotted a number of committee positions to which they can assign their members – deserves the ability to make these assignments unfettered by the majority party. When minority committee membership must be approved or can be vetoed by the majority, the minority party functionally ceases to freely participate in government. We then enter a state of governance once referred to by John Stuart Mill as the “tyranny of the majority”.

House ousts Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from committees in unprecedented vote

The majority’s removal of Congresswoman Greene from her minority-made committee assignments – particularly for past thoughts – is an exceedingly dangerous precedent. But one has to ask: why would the majority party risk having this same tactic used against them when they are no longer the majority? The answer is not hard to fathom: they don’t believe that they will ever lose the majority. Why? Because you do not win election to Congress by securing the approval of the people; you win elections by garnering disapproval for your opposition. It is a proven tactic that the majority has exploited brilliantly, using its pulpit in the House to denigrate the minority party at every opportunity. I offer as evidence the continued impeachment of former President Trump – even after leaving office – and the ongoing “cancel-culture” attacks on Rep. Greene, other minority party members and their supporters. It’s no wonder congress’s approval rating as of January 2021 is only 25%; it’s simply not a factor in getting elected.

I am sorely disappointed in the members of Congress that would use their majority power to silence a minority opinion, no matter how obscure. Freedom of thought and speech (the latter presupposes the former) are founding tenets of this country, and to see these freedoms destroyed in the name of politics is disheartening.

When people can no longer speak or think freely, when we can no longer disagree without being sanctioned or excluded, when we are forced to accept the opinion of the majority as our own or face censure, exclusion, or even expulsion – well, that’s not very American now, is it?

A Star Trek future?

I stumbled onto a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode while channel-surfing (Season 2, episode 12, “The Royale”) and I noticed something prophetic. There was a scene where the crew was inspecting a panel from a space ship wreck. On the panel was the NASA symbol and an American flag – with 52 stars. What did Gene Roddenberry know that we don’t?

I guess Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. are going to become states after all…

Rule #1

It’s hard to believe that people are this stupid. Well, maybe not; the liberal agenda has been taught in our schools for so long now that it’s quite possible that people ARE this stupid.

‘Hero Pay’: Los Angeles County approves additional $5 per hour for grocery, frontline workers

Let’s make sure we get this straight – the county is proposing that frontline grocery workers collect an extra $5/hr in pay from their employers (not from the government). If you were a liberal-educated grocery worker, one who was taught that money can be printed as needed and that the “evil” corporations were stealing your labor from you (rather than paying you a fair market wage), you’d probably be saying “Right on! Stick it to the man! Give me my extra money!”

But if you were a business owner, or even thinking about starting a business, what would you be saying? Would you pay this new mandated wage increase, bleeding money until you were destitute and the business collapsed? Would you pass the costs onto your customers, hoping that they wouldn’t start shopping someplace else, or on line? Or would you simply close your business down rather than suffer extended losses, like this grocery store chain in Long Beach?

Want a preview of what’s to come? Just ask the former autoworkers of Detroit. They, too, thought that they could mandate pay greater than the market would bear. Ask how that’s worked out for them so far….

ARGH!!

I hope she wasn’t a concealed carry permit holder. People like this make the rest of us look bad:

Ace Hardware employee accidentally shot by bystander: report

The suspect was fleeing. No one was in imminent danger. There was no need to brandish or discharge a firearm. To do so is reckless, dangerous and illegal in most municipalities – as the shooter will now discover.

I understand the desire to help, but if you find yourself in a similar situation (suspect fleeing, no one in imminent danger) please don’t. I’ll take my chances that a fleeing subject is no longer any danger to me.

More stimulus payments?

From a Fox Business article on President Biden’s proposed $1.9T “stimulus” package, which includes direct payments to individuals:

It would also include households with mixed immigration statuses after the first $1,200 payment that Congress approved in the March CARES Act left out the spouses of undocumented immigrants who did not have Social Security numbers.

Fully 81% of U.S. households qualify for stimulus payments based on a household income cutoff of $150K, yet far fewer households have had their income actually impacted by the pandemic. Yes, the unemployment rate is above normal, but not drastically so at 6.7%. Why then are we giving so many people direct stimulus payments, let alone illegal aliens? If we are making direct payments, shouldn’t they only go to those households whose income has actually been affected? Can someone explain what benefit we receive by sending people money they haven’t earned, haven’t lost, and in the end will have to repay with interest?

I mean, this is nuts. Really.