Tag Archives: #Hypocrisy

Posted on by

Irony is so ironic Wesleyan University professor uses First Amendment, and the internet, to argue that Second Amendment should be regulated by 1791 technology

Under what conditions did newspapers labor following the American Revolution? From Wikipedia:

Many of the papers, however, which were kept alive or brought to life during the war could not adapt themselves to the new conditions of peace. Perhaps only a dozen of the survivors held their own in the new time, notably the Boston Gazette, which declined rapidly in the following decade, The Connecticut Courant of Hartford, The Providence Gazette, and The Pennsylvania Packet of Philadelphia, to which may be added such representative papers as the Massachusetts Spy, Boston’s Independent Chronicle, the New York Journal and Packet, the Newport Mercury, the Maryland Gazette of Annapolis, the Pennsylvania Gazette and The Pennsylvania Journal, both of Philadelphia. Practically all were of four small pages, each of three or four columns, issued weekly. In 1783, the Pennsylvania Evening Post became the first American daily. The next year, the Pennsylvania Packet was published three times a week, and the New York Journal twice a week, as were several of the papers begun in that year. There was a notable extension to new fields. In Vermont, where the first paper, established in 1781, had soon died, another arose in 1783; in Maine, two were started in 1785. In 1786, the first one west of the Alleghenies appeared at Pittsburgh, and following the westward tide of immigration the Kentucky Gazette was begun at Lexington in 1787.

Conditions were hardly more favorable to newspapers than during the recent conflict. The sources of news were much the same; the means of communication and the postal system were little improved. Newspapers were not carried in the mails but by favor of the postmen, and the money of one state was of dubious value in another. Consequently, circulations were small, rarely reaching a thousand; subscribers were slow in paying; and advertisements were not plentiful. Newspapers remained subject to provincial laws of libel, in accordance with the old common law, and were, as in Massachusetts for a short time in 1785, subject to special state taxes on paper or on advertisements. But public sentiment was growing strongly against all legal restrictions, and in general the papers practiced freedom, not to say license, of utterance.

As we have previously noted, The Philadelphia Inquirer, established in 1829, is the third oldest continuously published newspaper in the United States, exceeded only by the New York Post, established 1801, and the Hartford Courant, first edition in 1764.

Newspapers and books were rare in the late 18th century, with the news often slanted, and a lot of inaccuracies published, especially as the sources of news were more distant.

The hand-written copy of the proposed articles of amendment passed by Congress in 1789, cropped to show just the text in the third article that would later be ratified as the First Amendment.

What became our First Amendment, which stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” was passed by the First Congress on September 25, 1789, and submitted to the states for ratification. It, along with the other nine amendments now referred to as the Bill of Rights, became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791.

Now comes Jennifer Tucker, an associate professor of history at Wesleyan University, in an OpEd published by CNN:

Now that guns can kill hundreds in minutes, Supreme Court should rethink the rights question

Opinion by Jennifer Tucker | Updated 7:31 AM ET | Wednesday, October 20, 2021

This fall, the US Supreme Court will decide New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Kevin Bruen, a case that may result in vastly expanded rights to carry firearms in public. In doing so, the Court will need to grapple with a key question that, until now, has been left unanswered in the Second Amendment debate: Are there any limits to the type of firearm that can be carried outside of the home?

Dr Tucker has erred from the first paragraph: that is not the question before the Supreme Court. Rather, under the Sullivan Act of 1911, New York state has required permits to carry firearms outside of the home, and has given localities discretion on the issuance of such permits, and New York does not issue permits for self-defense unless the applicant can demonstrate a non-speculative need for such; a neighborhood simply being unsafe is not sufficient. The case before the bar is one which holds that such discretion is not constitutional.

In the pivotal 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller — which recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right to own a gun at home for self-defense — the Court admitted the existence of different categories of weapons, while conceding that “dangerous or unusual weapons” could be regulated. But it did not define what constitutes a “dangerous or unusual” weapon, nor recognize that there are different degrees of danger within the category of firearms.

Dr Tucker continues to document the increased lethality of firearms since the flintlocks of 1791, holding that the Court must take that into account and limit our Second Amendment rights accordingly. You can follow the link to read her arguments yourself.

But, to me, there’s an obvious irony. Dr Tucker is using the virtually instantaneous world-wide transmission of her views in an effort to persuade people, while the ‘press’ the First Amendment protects was only that of poorly printed and locally sold and distributed newspapers. If she believes that the Supreme Court should recognize and take into account changes in firearms technology and thus limit our right to keep and bear arms, would not her arguments also apply to the freedom of speech and of the press? There were no microphones and amplifiers for public speech in 1791, nor photography, nor the ability to publish the photos which did not then exist. There was neither radio nor telegraph to transmit information over long distances, no television, no CNN, and no internet. Using her own arguments, the government ought to be able to regulate and restrict all media save the four-page newspapers available in 1791.

One could argue that there’s a qualitative difference, that freedom of speech and of the press cannot kill anyone, while firearms can. That, frankly, is nonsense: al Qaeda, Da’ish, and all sorts of other groups which bear us only ill will have used the internet, have used social media, have used modern communications to set in motion acts which have directly killed people. Modern communication has served to radicalize people into Islamist ideas, to turn people who may have been leading vaguely unsatisfying lives into monsters who only wish to kill others.

It isn’t even just the Islamists. People have been using the internet and modern communications to vilify Israel, to persuade (purportedly) intelligent Americans to anti-Semitism through constant attempts to turn Americans against Israel. People have been using the internet and modern communications to inspire racial hatred, to try to frustrate law enforcement, to make martyred saints out of thugs and convicted felons — and I refer not only to George Floyd, but Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and others — and to encourage anti-social and risky behavior, including the ‘hook up’ culture and the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.

Sure, I’m conservative, and have my biases in that direction, but the left make the same complaints, about the internet being used to promote conspiracy theories about the 2020 elections and COVID-19 and vaccine mandates . . . and they have actively been trying to censor such things. The left have been trying to ‘cancel’ people like comedian Dave Chappelle and Harry Potter author J K Rowling for not being fully on board with ‘transgenderism.’ Virtually every credentialed media source in American, in referring to Richard Levine, the assistant secretary for health at the US Department of Health and Human Services who claims to be female and goes by the name ‘Rachel’, and his recent promotion to Admiral in the United States Public Health Service, and anyone who challenged the cockamamie notion that he is female, or used the masculine pronouns to refer to him, would be subject to whatever scorn and ‘cancelations’ the left could muster.

Using Dr Tucker’s logic, the United States could regulate such communication, by the left and the right, virtually out of existence, and she is using that First Amendment protected media of broadcast and internet transmission to spread her ideas. The good and highly educated professor doesn’t even seem to have recognized the irony of her position.
________________________________
Related Articles:

Posted on by

What happens to liberal voters when the consequences of liberal policies start to interfere with their own lives?

We recently noted uber-liberal Austin — Joe Biden carried Travis County, where Austin is located, 435,860 (71.62%) to 161,337 (26.51%) — and how it cut the city’s police department budget by a third. Of course, the city has seen a 73.68% increase in homicides from January through May over the same period in 2020, but the lovely Amanda Marcotte, a former Austinite, claims that’s because guns are so easy to get, not that they were any harder to obtain in 2020.

But, with few exceptions, it’s just the riff-raff killing other riff-raff, so the liberal elites in the city government and around the University of Texas don’t really care. It seems that they only care when problems encroach on their neighborhoods. From The Wall Street Journal:

As Austin Booms, Homelessness Faces Crackdown

Bans on public camping in Texas are breaking up encampments downtown

By Elizabeth Findell | June 24, 2021 | 8:15 AM EDT

AUSTIN, Texas—A freeway overpass shaded Elizabeth Contreras’s tent from the hot Texas sun, five years into a stretch of on-and-off homelessness that began when her husband left her, she said. Austin Police Officer Rosie Perez stopped by the tent last week with a written warning for Ms. Contreras: Within weeks, she would need to be gone.

Police officers are beginning to enforce new city and statewide bans on public camping, after a two-year battle over Austin homeless policies. Amid a growth boom that accelerated the city’s affordability crisis, homelessness has increased and local shelters are mostly full.

“You guys are asking ‘Where do I go?’ and I don’t have an answer for you,” Ms. Perez told Ms. Contreras. “But I know the process is going to continue.”

Cities nationwide are grappling with how to respond to homelessness after the coronavirus pandemic. This rapidly growing city of nearly 1 million has an estimated 3,160 people experiencing homelessness, according to an estimate by the Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, a nonprofit that serves as the lead agency for homeless services in the Austin area. While that is a small number compared with many West Coast cities, the issue gained visibility after a change to city policies led homeless encampments to spread across downtown Austin and popular walking and biking paths.

Austin City Council members voted in 2019 to rescind a longtime city ban on sitting or sleeping in public, following testimony, mostly from homeless people and advocates, on its impact. One man spoke of a friend who had been killed when, sleeping in a tunnel to keep from being cited, she was swept away in a flood. Others said citations made it more difficult to work out of homelessness.

The majority of city council members agreed, saying camping rules criminalized homelessness and were inhumane and ineffective.

Backlash against the move was swift from Republican state officials, who often tangle with Austin’s liberal leaders. Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to override the decision days after the vote. Matt Mackowiak, head of the local GOP, spearheaded a petition effort to force the camping ban onto an election ballot. That effort gained steam, drawing support from police and some Democrats frustrated by the city’s limited action.

After initially saying they would carve out specific areas for camping, city leaders made no further adjustments to their policies. Efforts to purchase and operate hotels as transitional housing stalled. The Covid-19 pandemic complicated anti-homelessness efforts and reduced shelter capacity.

In May, critics of City Hall notched two victories. Austin voters approved Mr. Mackowiak’s ballot proposition, 57%-43%, forcing the city to reinstate the ban. State lawmakers also approved a ban on camping, with some recreation exceptions, on all public land in Texas. Neither ban made provisions for where to send people evicted from public spaces.

“Their social experiment on the camping ordinance failed so spectacularly that it can never be attempted in the state of Texas anywhere,” Mr. Mackowiak said.

There’s more at the original.

Remember: the voters who forced the reinstatement of the camping ban are the same ones who elected all of those Democrats and socialists to the city council, and the same ones who gave Joe Biden such an overwhelming victory in Travis County.

The Mayor stated that it’s easy to find political support to create more housing for the homeless, but a major political battle to figure out where to locate it. Translation: NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard.

This is what happens when liberal policies are enacted and start to actually affect mostly white, well-to-do liberal voters. They wouldn’t mind all of those tents if they were in the lower-class areas, but when they encroach on downtown high-rise condos or posh office buildings, that’s a different story altogether.

Posted on by

The silliness of ‘Earth Hour’

A group of environmentalists wants you to take ‘action’ on what they have named ‘Earth Hour,’ which is 8:30 PM in your local time zone. The image to the right is from their website, and shows a nice family with all of the electric lights out, burning candles, lots of candles, for illumination.

Oops!

Most candles are made of paraffin, a heavy hydrocarbon derived from crude oil. Burning a paraffin candle for one hour will release about 10 grams of carbon dioxide.

As Australian blogger Enoch the Red pointed out after last year’s Earth Hour that an average Australian who tries to replace all the light produced by an incandescent bulb with light cast by parrifin candles will result in about 10 times the greenhouse emissions.

The site claims that you can use candles made from something other than paraffin:

But of course you don’t have to burn paraffin candles. Beeswax and soy candles are mostly carbon-neutral because any carbon they release by burning was only recently absorbed by plants from the atmosphere. The carbon in paraffin, by contrast, has been sitting in the ground for hundreds of millions of years.

Uhhh, if they are concerned with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, doesn’t stating that soy or beeswax candles are mostly carbon neutral ignore the fact that not burning them at all is carbon negative?

It gets even funnier:

Take part in our first-ever Earth Hour “Virtual Spotlight”

👉 How? It’s simple. On the night of Earth Hour, we’ll be posting a must-watch video on all our social media pages – and all you have to do is share it. 

Share it to your Stories or to your wall, re-Tweet it, send it via DM, tag friends in the comments – the choice is yours!

Whether you share it with one person or one hundred, you’ll be helping us place the spotlight on our planet, the issues we face, and our place within it all.

Be sure to follow us on Instagram / Facebook / Twitter to stay updated!

Uhhh, doesn’t watching their must-watch video on all of their social media pages use electricity? Doesn’t sharing those vidiots on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter use electricity?

I copied the image to the left from their website, showing someone using the light from an iPhone to illuminate the earth. But, last time I checked, iPhones need to be recharged, and recharging them uses, you guessed it, electricity, electricity from the power plant! Perhaps they delayed its usage during ‘Earth hour,’ but it will still get used.

The real problem with the climate activists is that they do not understand their own hypocrisy. They want to Save the Planet from CO2 emissions, but the last thing they want to give up is modern life, their computers, their iPhones, their internet, their heating and air conditioning, really anything which differentiates the 21st century from the 14th.

The climate activists think that they are serious people, but it seems as though every action they take, everything they say, demonstrates how unserious they really are.

Posted on by

Are there no mirrors in the Biden Administration?

The much nicer, and better-looking, Dana commented, on Patterico’s Pontifications:

Boom:

The United States strongly condemns the use of harsh tactics against protesters and journalists this weekend in cities throughout Russia. Prior to today’s events, the Russian government sought to suppress the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression by harassing protest organizers, threatening social media platforms, and pre-emptively arresting potential participants. This follows years of tightening restrictions on and repressive actions against civil society, independent media, and the political opposition.

Continued efforts to suppress Russians’ rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, the arrest of opposition figure Aleksey Navalny, and the crackdown on protests that followed are troubling indications of further restrictions on civil society and fundamental freedoms. Russians’ rights to peaceful assembly and to participate in free and fair elections are enshrined not only in the country’s constitution, but also in Russia’s OSCE commitments, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in its international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

We call on Russian authorities to release all those detained for exercising their universal rights and for the immediate and unconditional release of Aleksey Navalny. We urge Russia to fully cooperate with the international community’s investigation into the poisoning of Aleksey Navalny and credibly explain the use of a chemical weapon on its soil.

Putin now: Damn Navalny for surviving that poison!

Of course, in the good and noble United States, we would never try “to suppress the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression by harassing protest organizers, threatening social media platforms, and pre-emptively arresting potential participants.”