"Not all Muslims"

Okay. Accepted happily without argument or reservation.

But how about: Not all Westerners. Not all Westerners are Islamophobes. Just as the violent Islamists are a tiny minority so too are the violent Islamophobes among Western nations. Most Westerners are content to go about their lives not bothering anyone and no more deserve to have war waged upon them than do the innocent Muslims of the Middle East.

Can we stop with the lectures and assignments of guilt already? If you preach it you should at least have the courtesy to practice it.

I am not beholden to their beliefs.

I don't set out to offend people, I even try to avoid it (most times). Still, I am my own person.

I find many things to be offensive. I try to avoid them. Many times I speak out against them because I am my own person. I prefer to speak to those who are offensive. First, because I don't think that which offends my values should be left unanswered. It should be challenged. Second, because I think people are free moral beings they have the ability to choose between right and wrong - and to see people choose right is a cause for joy. People certainly, according to my values, be compelled to do right. That's not a correct moral choice but rather a compulsion and it nullifies any moral benefit to the one who was coerced and the one who forced the action.

A man who refrains from stealing out of fear of the police is not honest, only the man who values his neighbor so as to not take what his neighbor has earned can be called honest.

I think blaspheming someone else's beliefs is at best, rude. But I am not beholden to their commandments because I do not share their values. Telling me to not offend them serves no purpose, it won't make me a better person it can only make me subject to values I do not share. That is pointless and if there are threats of violence for my failing to obey then it is now my values being blasphemed.

Why should I respect those who offend me with coercion?

If it can be demanded that I adhere to demands concerning blasphemy what else am I obligated to observe that would also offend my values? Should I cover my head? Should I never leave my house without my father or husband?

"No one is demanding you do that!"

Yet. By even then, why one and not the other? What is the boundary between what I am expected to accommodate and what I am free to choose on my own?

Offended? Let's talk it out.

Don't want to talk about it? That's your choice, you're on your own. Say whatever you like about me but keep your hands to yourself. If you can't then the problem will be yours. I'm not the bravest girl in the world but I don't feel like surrendering to anyone but my own Conscience.

Maybe I am just a young, naive waif and I have chosen the wrong Creed. Maybe others know better. But until the day comes and I am blessed with an epiphany I can only be who I am now. Anything else would be lying to you.

There is no such thing as being, "anti gun."

All law is predicated on the use of force, including deadly force.

Those who propose gun control laws are not advocating for the absence or guns but merely exclusivity in the use of guns. Advocating for laws is to advocate for the use of force.

But the use of force against whom? Women? The elderly? Shop owners? Family members? Hobbyists?

And this is supposedly done in the name of protecting the innocent.

Gun control is a wildly self-contradicting creed.

What would you say about a man who said to women

"Why are you working outside the home? Don't you know that's not your place?"

We would probably all be stunned into silent, blinking incredulity. The thought that anyone would suggest a woman she could not make her own way in the world strikes us as deeply offensive.

Suppose, then, this interlocutor doubled-down on their argument by saying a woman choosing to work outside the home was better off leaving such things to more capable people, that she was probably going to do more harm to herself or, worse, her selfish desire was the gateway by which others would be able to ruin society, in effect making her the reason for society's ills.

Such a person would be more than merely dismissed. They would be sent packing as nothing more than a blunt-headed misogynist.

If they then backed-up their demands with suggestions that women be compelled by any means to keep their place it would be immediately known that such a person could not be reasoned with and the more distance put between such a person and one's self, the better. The argument betrays itself, it isn't about what is best for society or women but about control so as to force others to live by that person's expectations.

Control. That's all it is about. nothing more and nothing less.

Sexual assault -- rape -- is also about control. There is no other explanation. Someone wanted something and another person refused to provide it so it will be taken or simply to show another who is boss.

Some people choose to demonstrate a sense of control in various ways but the rapist seeks a method that strikes at the very soul of the victim. It degrades, dehumanizes and humiliates the victim. That is its intent. No person should have to suffer such things. No person should be allowed to inflict such things.

So when a woman decides she wants to proactively take the means to defend herself, to not suffer an assault (or not suffer an assault -- again) she has the right to do so. To own one's body is far more personal than seeking a career outside the home. To tell her she should leave such things to more capable people or that she is to more is going to do more harm to herself or, worse, her choice is the gateway for the evils of others is -- at best -- demeaning.

To then suggest that such a woman should be compelled to obey -- just as before -- betrays the purpose of those arguments.

Control.

I am no more suggesting a woman is required to own a gun to prove her feminist bona fides anymore than I am suggesting a woman must work outside the home (For the record I do not carry a gun and I work outside the home part-time, spending the majority of my time taking care of my school-aged SIL). However, the choice must be there and it is a choice exercised by millions of women.

Slave labor farms left to continue undisturbed by police

Heartrending --

When The FISA Court Rejects A Surveillance Request, The FBI Just Issues A National Security Letter

When The FISA Court Rejects A Surveillance Request, The FBI Just Issues A National Security Letter Instead

We've talked quite a bit about National Security Letters (NSLs) and how the FBI/DOJ regularly abused them to get just about any information the government wanted with no oversight. As a form of an administrative subpoena -- with a built in gag-order -- NSLs are a great tool for the government to abuse the 4th Amendment. Recipients can't talk about them, and no court has to review/approve them. Yet they certainly look scary to most recipients who don't dare fight an NSL. That's part of the reason why at least one court found them unconstitutional.

At the same time, we've also been talking plenty about Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows the DOJ/FBI (often working for the NSA) to go to the FISA Court and get rubberstamped court orders demanding certain "business records." As Ed Snowden revealed, these records requests can be as broad as basically "all details on all calls." But, since the FISA Court reviewed it, people insist it's legal. And, of course, the FISA Court has the reputation as a rubberstamp for a reason -- it almost never turns down a request.

However, in the rare instances where it does, apparently, the DOJ doesn't really care, knowing that it can just issue an NSL instead and get the same information. At least that appears to be what the DOJ quietly admitted to doing in a now declassified Inspector General's report from 2008. EFF lawyer Nate Cardozo was going through and spotted this troubling bit:



https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141224/14510929524/when-fisa-court-rejects-surveillance-request-fbi-just-issues-national-security-letter-instead.shtml