Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:58 AM
Tue Nov 24
46 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/09/09
There's be a lot less grandstanding over abortion and health care reform when they'd have to face the consequences of their votes. #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
Perhaps you need to add making snap judgments about others based on personal bias to your list.
That said, some of your proposals are indeed.... sensible. #government
11/09/09
I've done my sums, and if you eliminate the 100,000-odd gun-related deaths and serious injuries from your annual health ledger (as opposed to the late Heath Ledger), you can finance your new health reforms. Not to mention, you'll save money by eliminating a whole raft of ongoing health issues caused by bullets. Et voila! Problem solved. #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
My question is why tax dollars should be spent on art?
Would painters, sculptors, songwriters, etc all stop what they are doing if there was no government funding? No.
If it is good then someone will pay for it. If not then it probably wasn't worth anything. #government
11/09/09
The world of art is rife with examples of great artists who scraped to get by their entire lives and never saw any of the money associated with sales of their work after death. One has to imagine that a good many would-be artists, people who might make grand contributions to the culture at large, are turned away by the prospect of dying penniless.
Honestly, all you have to do is look at poetry for a clear refutation of your argument. Only a few have ever managed to make a dime off of poetry, and most of those were hundreds of years ago.
And however vehement you may be in denying it, you really do seem to be against art and against artists.
11/09/09
It isn't actually any of my concern at all until someone starts talking about government funding.
I don't believe a handout should be given from tax dollars.
A poet can work at McDonalds and write in his off time. A painter can work at a toll booth etc.
Your statement proves my point though. These people will apparently do their "art" with or without money. If they are any good they will make money or they can get a job at Kinko's. #government
11/10/09
It's reckless to make the argument--and I think this is the argument you're making--that by funding the arts, we're funding something pointless, that isn't necessary to our culture at all. Presumably, you feel this way because you can't see any immediate "profit" in supporting the arts. This mentality of leaving anything that doesn't provide an immediate material benefit to its own devices, supposedly because everything of actual quality will provide said immediate material benefits (and if not, then it deserves to languish unsupported), is exactly the opposite of what the country needs right now.
Like it or not, the US is becoming a strictly service-based economy. A large part of the success of service economies lies in fostering the kind of creativity necessary for the emergence of novel services, things we can do that we never imagined would be necessary or marketable. Supporting artists fits directly into this paradigm. Creative industries are, and always have been, inspired by the works of artists who aren't technically part of the industrial world themselves.
Look at Korea (where I live right now, actually) if you want to see an example of a country struggling to get out of its manufacturing rut and move toward creative, service-based industries. They're learning firsthand what America seems to have forgotten, that creativity isn't just this frivolous thing that means nothing to a culture or a national economy, but that it is something absolutely integral in that regard. The government can only punt the ball on creativity to universities and private interests for so long before we start to see a general lag in our creative economy compared to other highly-developed nations around the world.
For example, the only thing really holding together our tech sector at the moment is the fact that creative foreigners have sought Silicon Valley as the starting place for their businesses. Most of the big tech companies these days are relying more and more on foreign personnel, because honestly, American creativity just isn't being supported anymore. #government
11/09/09
People who think like you really should just stand up and say that you believe the constitution is outdated and should be scrapped for a new, more progressive document altogether. At least you'd be intellectually honest and worthy of a modicum of respect, as opposed to the kabuki dance you people have been doing around it for the last 50 years or so.
Also, people aren't 'stupid' just because their beliefs run in opposition to yours. And calling them that is a very quick way to ensure that what you believe is dismissed as the rantings of a child. #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
It'd literally be the most important election, ever.
11/09/09
But then again I'm that rare thing, a lefty Constitutional literalist.
For instance, I can make a pretty plausible argument for the second amendment, which I have some fundamental, personal problems with. While it certainly has created a higher street crime rate over the years, I would also venture that the right to bear arms is the reason we've only had one civil war and why, in as militarized a country as this is, we've never had a military coup or fallen prey to military dictatorship. If you doubt me, take a look at the 19th century history of some of our European partners in the grand Democracy experiment.
See, even though gun violence is a terrible thing, the second amendment does what it's supposed to. An active and armed populace is hard to subdue, both from without and from within.
Just to reiterate, before I get piled onto here, I am about as lefty as they come, but I believe you take the Constitution as it is, even the parts you don't personally like. #government
11/09/09
So, let me get this straight...he wants to ban all guns yet legalize all drugs? The problem at the heart of both things is one and the same: people. A gun is a tool which can be used with different results depending on the person using it, just as much as a blunt or a tablet of X is. People can be responsible or reckless. Obviously we've seen that outright banning all drugs has led to ridiculous incarceration rates, drugs with dangerous and variable "inert" ingredients that kill, and since they are on the black market, the sales of many fund terrorist/gang/mob organizations. Look also at what happened during prohibition. We learned our lesson VERY quickly then. I agree that legalizing drugs is a solution to many of these problems - legalize it, tax and regulate the hell out of it.
And after knowing all that, he has the temerity to suggest that people are stupid to not support banning all guns except rifles and shotguns? Fortunately, it doesn't take a "genius" to figure out what will happen then - just look to illegal controlled substances as a good example.
11/09/09
More likely this is because each state has a national guard at the command of its governor.
In any case, correlation is not causation, etc, etc, etc.
11/09/09
Also, I don't really think a populace armed with handguns or rifles is going to be able to compete with a trained military using unmanned drones and tanks. But I take your point. #government
11/09/09
And after knowing all that, he has the temerity to suggest that people are stupid to not support banning all guns except rifles and shotguns?
Emphasis mine. So which is it? #government
11/09/09
I'm sorry, but building a gun and growing weed are entirely different things. I'm not saying that guns wouldn't be available in some measure on the black market if they were banned. But I would imagine that our current source of guns is mainly domestic and that, if we simply shut down all of those factories, the supply would come to a halt rather quickly.
I actually disagree with Ravi. I think that all guns should be banned, because honestly, any motherfucker who's going to use a gun to kill somebody is just going to use what's available, even if we're talking only rifles and shotguns. In fact, I don't see why rifles and shotguns are an exception to the rule. Just because they are commonly used for hunting? Honestly, I'd rather be shot with a 9mm than get shotgunned in the face, but that's just me. #government
11/09/09
Banning guns isn't going to lower the murder rate. #government
11/09/09
Besides that, correlation/causation, &c., and it's not like there haven't been numerous uprisings in the US in its extremely short (compared to Europe's) history that we haven't put down by shooting the crap out of our citizenry. #government
11/09/09
This statement is completely false. A Dremel is a tool which can be used with different results depending on the person using it. A gun is a unitasker. So is a tablet of X.
Don't believe me? Okay, then try using your gun for something other than shooting someone. #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
That said, I think the second amendment has been effective in accomplishing the stated goals of the framers.
Furthermore, compared to other countries who moved towards democracy in the same era, we've had an unusually long and stable run (barring some notable exceptions). #government
11/09/09
Shit, wait, you probably could. #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
We have had governors who were apposed to what we were doing in Iraq, but they were stopped by federal law from pulling their guardsmen home, which has seemed to trump the notion that the individual states control the guard like they did a century ago. What we have now is an army, and a Landswehr (look up the term). That still doesn't count the mercenaries that Bush-Cheney hired; are they a third group, or a part of the landswehr?
The effects of Katrina were felt so badly on the gulf because the NG had been stripped and sent to the other gulf, along with all the support equipment that they would have used to help the citizens effected by the hurricane. What few people were left at the armories had no gear with which to rescue and assist as they might have done a decade before.
11/09/09
That is pretty effective to me
[kotaku.com]
If someone wants to kill someone they will find a way to do it.
Besides even if they get rid of guns and ammo people could still make home made bombs using household items.
The weapons are not the problem it is the people who want to kill other people #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
I could get pretty fucked up if I drank enough Listerine. It's a lot more efficient and quick if I just boot up a spoonful of heroin though. #government
11/09/09
11/09/09
Outlawing guns does not solve the problem. #government
11/09/09
But the bottom line is that, if the president decided to use the military to lock everything down and form a dictatorship of some sort, there would be 50 states worth of National Guard troops with loyalty to that state (since that's where they're from, where their families are most likely located, etc) under the control of individual governors, ready to fight against such a measure.
This idea that we need the 2nd Amendment because we need civilian militias is completely bogus. National Guard troops serve the same purpose. #government
11/09/09
11/10/09
No one thinks guns invented murder, and no one thinks making guns illegal will eliminate murder.
Guns are simply the quickest, easiest, and most impersonal way to murder a human being ever invented. They are extraordinarily efficient murder machines. Without them people would kill each other a lot less frequently, and even if they still tried at the exact same rate to kill, they would have a lot less success at finishing the job. #government
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
The states with the lowest crime rates are ones that allow concealed weapons.
The states with some of the highest crime rates have very strict gun control laws.
Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
Violent crimes have gone up in Canada since they added their gun control laws. #government
11/10/09
11/09/09
"Legalize" is a very... strong term. I'd say create an easy way for illegal immigrants to get citizenship, they are here anyway after all, but don't make it a rubber stamp policy.
Also, legalizing drugs will only get big tobacco & pharmacies on that stuff, and in the interest of making money, start lobbying for the ability to take it out of the public's hands. Better to just decriminalize or legalize ala Amsterdam. #government
11/09/09
Personally, I'd rather let Big Tobacco play because not only do they have effective lobbyists, but I'd like the convenience of buying joints over-the-counter.
Not to mention that it's the tax benefits that'll likely get us over the hump, something they wouldn't be able to derive from just allowing homegrown.
11/09/09
11/09/09
The last time states were actively decriminalizing and there was legitimate talk of legalization, the rumor, often credited to the tobacco companies was that the manufacturing process wouldn't be any more expensive than that of making cigarettes.
You could easily tack a $10 federal and a $5 state tax on that and still sell a pack for less than street value.
Otherwise, I've always advocated for political purposes that distribution should probably be limited to liquor stores, unless after a time, they could come up with a lower THC-content product, which could be sold in stores licensed for beer and wine.
11/08/09
I'm happy with most of it - it's an incrementalist bill that lays the groundwork for single payer - but there's a lot I don't like. Too many things were left out, and the abortion amendment had no place in a modern society's health care structure. #healthcare
11/08/09
"Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom."
I did think about it, and he's totally right! Oh my god I'm so stoned. #healthcare
11/08/09
11/08/09
11/08/09
We managed to find the funds (which are probably now in the billions) to fight two wars and really have nothing but lost lives to show for it and yet, somehow trying to get American citizens decent health care is going to bankrupt us.
There are legitimate points some of the Republicans also make about tort reform and access because you're talking about taking on an additional 20-30 million people with the same amount of facilities and providers. I know they've proposed adding to the class size in medical schools and such and I hope that won't get killed by the AMA, who was staunchly against it when Clinton proposed it during her try at fixing this.
I, for one, would have liked to see something in this bill about banning pharmaceutical companies from advertising prescription medications on the air and in print.
While the profession is a noble one, I can say from first hand experience that there is a great deal of them (physicians) who are morally corrupt...........when it comes to financially rewarding themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.... as well as many of their patients. #healthcare
11/08/09
11/08/09
11/08/09