Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Peter William Lount
Committed to excellence in living in the objective reality of Nature. Scientist, Geek, Humanist, Spontaneous Voluntary Free Market committed to the Non-Aggression Principle.
Committed to excellence in living in the objective reality of Nature. Scientist, Geek, Humanist, Spontaneous Voluntary Free Market committed to the Non-Aggression Principle.
About
Communities and Collections
View all
Posts

Post has attachment
One of my favorite after hours gas stations is closing with just a few hours. Now I'll have to walk miles and miles and miles to get after midnight snacks and drinks. Doh. Land value economics are driving this in Vancouver.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pricey-real-estate-fuels-chevron-s-decision-to-sell-5-more-vancouver-locations-1.4251459
Photo

Post has attachment
As if being offended gives you any rights to assault anyone. That goes for all of you. Why the fuck are you going armed to a peaceful protest? Guns? Seriously? Clubs? Seriously? Knives? Seriously? Cars as weapons? Seriously? If you are taking a weapon to a peaceful protest you expect it to not be peaceful, you're expecting trouble, so what the fuck is wrong with you? Why would you do that? Your taking weapons such as guns, clubs, knives, cars, etc... means that you're part of the problem not part of the solution, if you're part of the problem you're part of the problem.
Photo

Post has attachment
First Amendment Allan Gelbard writes publically on his FB page [1]:

"Many of my friends have been asking me to weigh in on the recent happenings. Before I run off to a magical place where hate, bigotry and racism are all but non-excitant, I will do so in the hope that some good may come of this mess....

It’s a difficult time to be a First Amendment lawyer. So many ugly things being said, and so much violence. And, if that’s not bad enough, we have a president who thinks there is a moral equivalence between White Supremacist/Nazi/Fascists and those protesting against those detestable groups.

Most of my friends know I practice First Amendment law. Many know I’m serious about it because of a) how I came to be a lawyer in the first place, b) I’ve been doing it for more than 20 years, and c) I tattooed the First Amendment around my arm! What many of them don’t know is, while I’m now squarely in the secular/atheist camp, I was raised in a Jewish family and both my parents’ families were Austrian.

Austria was - to put it mildly - not a nice place for jews in the late 30s... My mother’s family was somewhat wealthy. The Nazis murdered her father, but she, her mother, 2 sisters and a neighbor girl they rescued (and who I always considered an aunt) escaped to England and subsequently the US. My father’s family was not wealthy. He smuggled his sister (who had been stricken with polio) out through Switzerland, made it to England, and subsequently emigrated to the US as well. The rest of his immediate family all perished at Auschwitz.

Clearly, I’m not a fan of Nazis... And so two of my core belief systems, “Free Speech Good” and “Nazis Bad” have collided. As you might imagine, my First Amendment brethren have been discussing this issue quite passionately over the past few days. We all come from different backgrounds, socio-economic strata, and perspectives. None of us (as far as I know) defend racism, violence, misogyny, or hate. But it is crucial to distinguish between the despicable practices and the right to advocate for (and against) them. Some - who have similar familial histories - have been hard pressed to defend the free speech rights of Nazis. I understand their concerns. But I’ve come down on the side that protecting Free Speech is a national imperative. The tragic happenings of the past few days - if anything - have shown that the First Amendment works.

The core principal we First Amendment advocates cling to is that the remedy for (bad) speech is not censorship, but more (good) speech. Detestable ideas are welcomed into the marketplace of ideas so that other - better - ideas may be offered to counter them. The bad speech is then rejected by society in favor of the good. That is what is happening today.

The White Supremacist/Nazi/KKK held a march espousing hate and bigotry. It is tragic that a young woman and two police officers were killed and others seriously injured. My heart goes out to their families and friends. But the counter-protestors showed up and offered a different - better - prospective. Society has been forced to weigh these competing ideas and it seems the correct side is winning this argument.

The President is now paying a serious political toll for not denouncing the bad ideas quickly or strongly enough. He has no one to blame for this mess but himself. Trump has a history of racism - from a father arrested at a Nazi gathering, to his own business discriminating against people of color. His divisive “dog whistle” messages to these groups - who he appears to consider his base - gave them all the impression that their ignorant hateful beliefs had become mainstream. They marched openly - in front of a phalanx of cameras - without the KKK hoods that they usually would wear. Ooooops!

Free Speech is protected, but the exercise of that right to promote ideals antithetical to (most of) our common belief systems carries certain penalties. These horrible people are now being outed on-line. Some (and hopefully more) will lose their jobs, their standing in their communities; and maybe - just maybe - some of them will come to understand that their bigotry, racism, and hate are simply ignorant. Many of us already know this. But those who had no idea that such things existed in our country know it now. And from what I’m seeing, almost all of them are coming down on the right (as in correct) side of history.

There is another issue bubbling up here which involves the intersection between the First and Second Amendments. Many of these people showed up carrying torches and armed to the teeth. They carried assault rifles and many wore combat uniforms and body armor. In my mind, this is where speech becomes intimidation and the threat of the immediate breach of the peace. That is not protected speech, that is illegal conduct and they should be arrested and prosecuted.

I will leave my disagreement with the Heller decision for another day, but even assuming citizens have the individual right to own and carry firearms, they do not have the right to “brandish” them, or threaten others with them.

When a violent militia marches down main street, with the expressed intention of causing a breach of the peace, they should be met with overwhelming opposition, including if necessary tanks, the national guard, and enough police to take each of them into custody. In this country, we don’t win political arguments with intimidation and guns - we win them with discourse, debate and the democratic process.

If the Nazis want to rally, peacefully, it is their right to espouse whatever lunacy they chose. Same goes for any other group of people who believe in a cause. They must be permitted to toss their ideas in the market-place of ideas. And then society must reflect and decide whether to accept them, or condemn them. Whether to adopt the ideas as public policy, or toss them into the trash bin of history.

But we cannot - ever - decide that peacefully proffering ideas is bad. Because while the disgusting idea you disagree with today - and want censored - may be someone else’s, tomorrow, that idea may be yours and may be the counter to an even more disgusting idea."

[1] https://www.facebook.com/allan.gelbard/posts/1430892436986532
Photo

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
#Antifa is a violent #AltLeft organization which is perfectly willing to initiate aggression against others, they go armed to protests. They act consistent with a terrorist organization, as such they are just as dangerous, if not more than, as the loser ethno-nationalists fringe white nationalists and other types of kkk nazi idiots.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
#Escaping #Totalitarianism of the US system. Because the USA isn't open to the economic advantages of these people they shove the opportunity onto Canada.

"Over 3,800 migrants crossed illegally into the Canadian province of Quebec in the first two weeks of August.

That is well over four times the number of asylum seekers that arrived in Quebec from the United States in the month of June.

Canada has had a surge of refugee claimants in recent months, especially into the French-speaking province.

It is trying to stem the tide with the warning that landing in Canada is not an automatic ticket into the country.

Both provincial and federal officials are concerned that misinformation about Canada's refugee system is being propagated through social media, helping fuel the influx."

Post has attachment
Acts that once were in the shadows are now remembered far and wide across time. Conduct yourselfs wisely out there people, if you engage in political violence you really have to not do that. Do not engage them in public. Use your words online.
Photo
Wait while more posts are being loaded