Tired of the Internet

                After you read this you may think to yourself, "Isn't this guy a hypocrite?"  The answer to that question is yes.

                So I have reached the point in my life where I am tired of the internet. Not the technology itself, but the affect it is having on myself and my nation. The idea of having the whole body of human knowledge at my fingertips is greatly appealing and uplifting to my scholar's soul. The problem I am having is that the internet is also bringing more problems to our society than we can cope with all at once.

Here is a list of things I am struggling with:

                People's opinions and commentary on everything

                The lack of common sense and vitriol spewed by people because there are no consequences

                The rush to get information out first (usually incorrect information)

                Constant bickering between uninformed parties

                Constant social media bombardment

                Hate speech as the norm

                Assault on the English language

                De-sensitized young people

                Memes

                So many of these problems stem from the utter lack of feedback and repercussions from putting out any random thought that crosses your mind. Saying things on the internet that  would get you scolded or knocked out if spoken among real people seems to be a game among some of the less mature users of the web. Even normally polite people can be tempted to "flame" someone in a forum or chat room because there is no feedback from the community that says that this kind of speech is not acceptable.

                The problem going forward is that we are raising a generation of children who stare at the internet to see what everyone is saying instead of forming their own thoughts and opinions. This leaks over into their everyday life where they become accustomed to angry hateful speech as the norm and tend to ignore anything but the most "extreme" examples of any particular topic.

                Young people are also becoming used to the idea that everything they say is super-important. Social Media is partly responsible for  this idea because every person with an internet connection has a bully-pulpit from which they can shout any banal nonsense that comes into their brain. Now, normally I would think that it wouldn't make a difference if a teenager or young person tells the world what they are thinking, however the current crop of young people is used to the idea that their thoughts are more important than the thoughts of others. This leads them to ignore what other people have to say and it gives them a sense of entitlement and self importance that they do not deserve.

                I do realize that there are many great young people out there that are doing the right thing and making the world a better place. I encounter these kids every day and I know that these will be the ones running our companies and government in the future. What I am concerned with is an overall  trend toward obnoxious behavior.

                This problem is not limited to young people(although I think it will hurt them the most). Many "professional" media outlets perpetuate stupidity with their rush to get the story out first. Many times either getting the facts wrong or writing in a style that is almost incomprehensible to and educated person.  Personally, I would rather have a well written and sufficiently researched article a few hours  (or even a day) after a news story than a hurried incorrect piece of trash that is on the web seconds after the occurrence.  These are professionals that are getting paid and often times they are not even close to the actual facts in any story they right.

                Worse than the media outlets are the people who spend a good chunk of each day commenting on message boards and forums about the often incorrect media interpretations of things that happen. Here is a breakdown of how these "discussions" usually happen:

                Incorrect and poorly written article hits the web 

                Anti-social "internet expert" makes a comment

                Another "expert"  refutes his comment with something he read

                on another site five minutes ago.

                 For a brief moment the conversation might actually be reasoned or civil.

                 Another poster agrees or disagrees in an insulting way

                 Smart ass teenager posts something inflammatory to get people angry (trolling)

                Name calling and stupidity ensue.

                Made up stats and charts are posted

                More name calling

                Media outlet releases a more accurate but equally poorly written article.

                                Repeat as necessary

               So what can be done? Obviously I do not think that banning or limiting the internet is the answer. The internet is one of the greatest things that mankind has ever come up with. However, I do think that there is a limit to how much of this good thing we have in our lives. So going forward I propose that we all step away from our monitors and take a walk outside. Because at the end of the day what are we gaining by learning everyone's opinions on everything?

How to spot a political extremist.

       Many times, online especially, you will run across people who seem to be so far out beyond reason they cannot be reached.  Those who live inside their own distortion bubbles.  While identifying them in other countries is easy, as they tend to carry rifles and shoot at government buildings; here in America, we are a bit more tame.  We need a way to easily tell who they are, so as not to waste time interacting with them.  I have a few methods I would like to share.

       First is the easiest: they self-identify as part of a known extremist group, such as the Tea-Party.

       Second, and less obvious:  they post items online that rely on assumptions to prove "Facts".  Examples are: "working class people who vote Republican have been brainwashed because the Republican party is run by rich people." and "The Republican base fears Obama will take their guns because they are all ignorant red-necks."  

       Now before you point out the obvious contradiction, or say I'm picking on anyone, those examples were used only because I had seen them both in the last hour.  

       A third method of spotting extremists is to look for "The Emperor's new clothes" reasoning.  "This is so obvious only a fool not worth talking to, would disagree"  (Again, from the last hour or so.)

       Any single one of these will not mark someone out as an extremist.  We've all fallen into logical traps like these before.  The idea though is to not look like a Bigfoot hunter.  Not to insult Bigfoot hunters, as a group, I am just holding them up as the standard of self-delusional stupidity.  Ghost hunters too, for that matter.  If at any point, any evidence could be perceived, in an any way to back up their claims; they stop looking for any other explanation. 

       This is the same as the "Birthers" not accepting the President's birth certificate.  "The real one is from Kenya, therefore this one is fake."  No other possible explanations are pursued, nor are they accepted.  

       Another tack you will see is the: "This is based on real numbers", yet no source is given.  This one infuriates me more than the others because, if you are online already to post something, you can take the five freaking seconds to look up a source.

       All of these methods, you will see, discourage debate, contradiction, or conversation.  Some outright punish it.  In science, any theory which has no method for disproving it, is false by definition.  We need more of that logic here.  

       What I am saying is based on real science and is so obvious, no one but a fool could see it any other way.  The rich, gun-toting red-neck hillbilly, bible-thumping, right-wingers, will obviously disagree with this.  So too will the anti-gun, entitlement-program loving, liberals who are giving our country away to the illegals.  But clearly, as they disagree with this, they are fools.

The fix for the economy

       Alexander Hamilton, (Ten dollar bill dude) is credited as being the first American protectionism theorist. Let's look at some of his ideas.

1. "Protecting duties." (Tariffs.)
2. "Prohibition of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions." (Outright import bans.)
3. "Prohibition of the exportation of the materials of manufactures." (Export bans on raw materials needed for industrialization here at home.)
4. "Pecuniary bounties." (Export subsidies, like those provided today by the Export-Import Bank and other programs.)
5. "Premiums." (Subsidies for key innovations. Today, we would call them research and development tax credits.)
6. "The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty." (Import liberalization for industrial inputs, so some other country can be the raw materials exporter and we can industrialize.)
7. "Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures." (Same idea, by means of tax rebates.)
8. "The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, .and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery." (Prizes for inventions and, more importantly, patents.)
9. "Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities." (Regulation of product standards, as the USDA and FDA do today.)
10. "The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place." (A sophisticated financial system.)
11. "The facilitating of the transportation of commodities." (Good infrastructure.)

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/america-was-founded-as-a_b_713521.html)

       The basic idea here is to make sure American industry was given preference.  We forgot about that in the 80's.  In the 90's the factory workers, who now had no factories to work in, switched to construction jobs.  In the 00's those jobs began to dry up, as an economy that produces nothing cannot support itself.  So far, in the 10's we are seeing crippling unemployment, and the jobs that are being created don't pay as well as what was lost.  What do we do about it?

       Well, we begin by reinstating Hamilton's brilliant ideas.  That action alone will not immediately fix everything, but needs to be done.  Then we begin to assist the growth of companies that make pre-fabricated and modular homes.  Our workers mostly came from factories and switched to construction, and so are uniquely qualified for this.  The homes, or modules, are the same size as a standard shipping container.  This allows easy transport by road, rail, or ship.

       But to whom do we sell?  Our trade partners in Europe have regulations about historic areas, and their own protectionist policies.  But, much of India and Africa have a need.  We could provide them expertly built and wired homes, giving them no need to develop that particular set of skills domestically, and perpetuating the need to import homes from us.

       We would have a great export business for homes going in no time.  It would be a status symbol to have an "American Style" house.  This would set up further demand for American built goods.

       Once these trade partners are cemented, longing for the good stuff America can provide them, we leverage our true strength.  Food Production.  We do it better.  We do it cheaper.  We do it so well, we pay farmers to not grow food, just to keep the prices up.  Those prices are still a fraction of what the same food would cost in Europe.  

   

       I would point out, as well, that protecting American interests should not ever be a partisan issue.  Many say protectionism is something that the right disdains, as it hurts trade; and the left embraces, because it helps unions.  If it helps unions, that is only because they are covered under the broader category of "American".  If it hurts trade, the trade being hurt was not to our advantage anyway, so let it be hurt.  American dollars for sub-standard foreign goods is never a good trade.  

       Of course this idea is expressed facetiously.  Well halfway facetiously.  We do need to protect our interests better.  

If you have to say it...

       In life there are many things that need to be said.  "Excuse me", to someone with no situational awareness, "I love you" to your family, "I'm not going to tell you again" has a host of uses.  The point is there are things that need saying, and things you need to say, and there is a difference.  

       "I'm mature"  is never true if you have to say it.  Likewise, if you have to tell someone how tough you are; you aren't.  If you need to remind someone of how respected you are; sorry, you aren't.  If you mention to someone how "enlightened" you are, you clearly don't understand what the word means.  

       The same holds true for spreading your personal beliefs (manure), and yes, I am fully aware that I am doing exactly that, right now.  I am referring more to folks like the evangelical atheist.  The preachy vegan, telling you how wrong it is to eat meat, or use animal products; is completely unaware that they are not convincing anyone, and that the loudest voice is least convincing.  "Christians", you know the ones, they can't pray inside, where only God can see them; are the same as the preachy vegans.  

       One of my favorite points where speech is in direct contradiction to reality has to be "You deserve happiness".  (or a new car, home loan, etc.)  No one deserves anything, unless they have committed a crime.  Almost any encouraging words we have for each other stand with one foot in "lie", and the other in "truth".  Kid Rock had the right of it:  "You get what you put in, and people get what they deserve.

       I will end by letting you know the ugliest of truths you will have to face.  When you need to post, each day, how you are thankful for something just because its November; you are not thankful.  By your need to say you are, you are screaming that you are not.

A last minute plea for civil disobedience.

       What I am proposing is a little ridiculous, but if you are someone I have ever met, this will not be surprising.  See, being a "Third Party Voter" most of my life, in a solidly blue state (Illinois), I have come to despise the electoral college.  In Illinois, unless you vote democrat, you may as well stay home.
       The problems are legion with our current, electoral, approach, but let's recap.  Electors are not required to vote as instructed.  Districts are drawn by the party currently in control of the state.  (gerrymandered).  The two major parties have everything so figured out with polling, that they already know where to bother throwing money.
       It all adds up the same.  Your vote does not count.  Not directly.  Not even if your state or district votes your way.   
       So What I am suggesting is this:  If you are in a state that is "in play", vote your conscience.  Sleep the sleep of the just.  But if you are in a very red state, vote for Obama.  If you are in a solid blue, Romney.  Even if you are voting against your conscience.  Even if it will make no difference.  (It won't)
       Even states that "split their electorate" can participate.  In those states just apply the same rule at a district level.  (Blue districts vote red; red votes blue).
       The idea is for as many states as possible to have the slimmest possible margin of victory.  So that no matter who wins, the popular vote will not be the same as the electoral vote.  Maybe, if we do this enough, things will change.
       Maybe I'll win the lottery.  Maybe the tides will stop because I say so.  Maybe, in the long run, if you look at voting records rather than rhetoric, the two major party candidates are so similar it won't make a difference anyway.
       So get out and vote.  If you are in Ohio it might even mean something.

No requirement of truth

       A recent post hijacking got me thinking.  The "two parties" have done a perfect job of brainwashing America.  Ask someone to define a typical Republican and they would list them as being "Rich, white guys" at best.  Ask for the typical Democrat and you might hear talk of being "socialist".  Why do we believe this?

      "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -H.L. Mencken-
     
        That's pretty much it isn't it?  We believe what we are being sold.  We see the advertisements and disregard the ones we don't agree with.  We see the ones we agree with and add those "facts" to our list of talking points.  Here is a fact for you.  Political speech has no requirement for truth.  That's right.  There is no such thing as false advertising, bait and switch, or breach of contract associated with political advertising.
       You may have heard the radio spots where one candidate (Beaubien) is claiming the other (McSweeney)  made comments about denying a woman's right to an abortion, (He did, but not in that context) then launches, without segue-way, into a quote, made by someone else, that is very inflammatory   The ad then states that McSweeney, being of the same party, clearly feels the same way.  If this were advertising it would be brought to court over this flagrant misstatement.  But political speech is exempted from the requirement of truth.
       McSweeny, of course, ran an ad defending himself and saying that Beaubien was just trying to cover up having voted for a tax increase.  I still don't see what one has to do with the other, and they both are lying.  Again, there is no requirement not to.
        See the idea is that the opposing party will just run an ad countering the claims of the first.  A great solution if there are only two, well-backed and very well-connected, parties.  Slander a green party, libertarian, or other "third party" candidate and they will just have to take it.  They don't have the money to run a counter ad.  That is a bit imbalanced isn't it?  If they were selling a product they would be brought to court over price-fixing, market-fixing, or collusion.
       So the "two parties" have a lock on the system, no requirement for truth, and a set of stereotypes they have sold the American people on, to such a degree that we automatically assume Romney to be an elitist, owned by big business, and Obama a gun-hating socialist.  Their voting records actually show those roles to be reversed.
       I would ask you to make sure you go vote your conscience, but you really can't.  Unless your candidate is the honest one, and clearly, the other guy is lying.  Sure, we'll go with that.

In January the sale of medical devices will be taxed.

        I have taken it on myself to write our senators in Illinois, about an upcoming vote to repeal a tax.  This tax will begin in January of next year.  It will tax the sale of medical devices.  The tax will be paid by the manufacturers.  Because apparently, if you are a lawmaker, you are either so daft, or so arrogant, that you don't realize the cost to hospitals will go up by the same 2.3% you have decided to tax the manufacturers.  I wonder how the hospitals will make that back?  Yes, folks, it is another indirect tax they are hoping we wont notice, or will blame the hospitals and  not Washington.  

       In a change of format, I will provide the text of the message I sent to our Senators.  The House has already voted 270-146 to repeal this tax so, for now, they are in the clear, on this issue.

Message below:

       I have already written on behalf of my company to you.  I am speaking now as a private citizen.  A 2.3% tax on the sale of medical devices, paid by the manufacturer, will only be added to the cost of the sale.  Hospitals, who can least afford it, and are currently being pressured by new regulations, an increase in the percentage of non-paying clients, and pressure from the insurance companies, (also caused by Washington), will end up paying this indirect tax.  This type of indirect tax should be made unlawful.  It is dishonest and insulting to our intelligence.  In this case it will also either cause the collapse of our healthcare infrastructure to accelerate, or the loss of even more U.S. manufacturing jobs.  I would say thanks for listening, but there is little chance you will ever directly see this. So to the staffer who does read this: please relay my profound displeasure over this tax.  I understand there is a vote coming, naturally after the November elections, to repeal this.  This unfair, unscrupulous, and frankly immoral tax should be repealed immediately, regardless of the winner of the Presidential election, or the political climate.  

End Message

       Here are some web pages that allow you to message the staffer who might eventually summarize what you have written into a thumbs-down.  (Or thumbs-up, you might want to pay more for healthcare.  I'm not you.  I don't know.)  At any rate, here is how to futilely attempt to have your voice heard.

http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=comment_on_legislation   For Mark Kirk

http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact              For Dick Durbin.

Feel free to copy-paste my message.  It might be taken to mean a level of organization, and maybe even scare them into doing their jobs for a change.  

Thanks for listening.

Full circle

       In the election year part of the political cycle I am reminded of the way history moves in circles.  There is a vicious cycle where one party is elected, halfway through they start to lose support, the other party takes over the Senate, House, or both.  Then that party loses the presidency.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  This may be a four year cycle, it may be 8, or longer, but it always repeats, just with the opposite party in control next time.
       Things always come full circle.  That is the heart of the problem isn't it.  Combine simple geometry with basic root cause analysis, and even a brain-damaged chimp will shortly realize that moving in circles is not progress.  As long as we continue the vicious cycle, as long as things come full circle, we cannot progress.  Progress, you see, is a line.  Not an arc, not a sine wave, not a line segment and not a tangent.  It is a line that stretches from before history, to beyond it.
       "So", I hear yo asking, "what can we do to fix this?"  Well it is simple.  Most things are, we just  complicate them as an excuse as to why we refuse to do them.  First: admit the parties currently in power do not represent Joe six-pack.  They also don't represent Joe dime-bag, or Joe Magnum-of-Champagne.  This is more than a failure of the media, the public, and the two party system.
       Also, I hate use of the term two-party system.  It comes from the two major parties, of course.  But more so; in global politics the western world is the first world.  The soviet bloc was the second world.  The two had modernity.  The "Third world" nations were those that refused to ally with either, and thus were more denied modernity.
       The implication of referring to another group as a "third party" is that they are inferior.  Funny, since normally they have the better ideas, and more honest candidates.  Also, as long as we have brought math into the picture, count the number of people running for president on your ballot when you are voting.  WAAAAYYYYYY more than three, right?
       Back to the fixing it part.  We need more people to get involved.  Theodore Roosevelt put it best.  "A vote is like a rifle.  It's usefulness depends upon the character of the user"  You can't fix it by shouting slogans, picketing, or backing someone who represents a single issue you believe in.  Nothing is solved by relying on talking points.  The world of sound-byte debating is killing real political discussion.  This is more than just bringing civility back to political debate, it is approaching things from the perspective of listening.
       Civility is not interrupting.  Civility is not yelling.  These are things that your parents should have pounded through your thick skull.  These are things that are the basics of society.
       Listening however, is accepting that the other side may have a point, and giving another point of view a chance before condemning it.  It involves thinking.  Listening and thinking are what are missing from the American political scene.  Two tenets of leadership.  All we are left with is action.  Action without thought or knowledge is at best wasteful, at worst harmful, and always leads you back where you started.  A point we arrive at every election year.  (back to top).
     

Austerity Measures coming for the U.S.A.

       Before we examine what that might entail we need to realize a few things.  First, Spain and Greece are not alone in owing more than their GDP annually.  Second, At least they had the good sense not to borrow the bulk of their cash from their primary trade partner.
       See here in the U.S.A. we have borrowed heavily from Chinese banks.  While a bad move for many reasons it is especially stupid when you consider we are borrowing now, to pay the interest on past loans.  Mostly also from China.  We now owe more than we can pay.  So how can we fix this?
       The solution we have been using is to keep borrowing, which undermines American manufacturing so it outsources to China.  Then buying goods that used to be domestic, but are now imported.  But then we all knew that.  Essentially it's like having your home mortgaged through Wal-Mart bank, where you also buy your food, clothes etc.  Then realizing you can't pay for your groceries, so you borrow more from them.
       What I'm driving at here is that we joke about the collapse of the Spanish, and the Greek economy.  We laugh about the Austerity measures they must now endure just to pay back a loan they should never have taken out.  We make fun of the people there for allowing their own government to run the country into the dirt so bad they had to borrow more than their entire countries production, in the first place.
       What makes us different?  By all means, keep on laughing.  It isn't going to be funny in a few more years when China wants its money back, and we can't pay.  We will be at the same point sooner than you could imagine.  Or maybe not.  See, I learned a trick or two in my negotiations class.  Sometimes the weak position is stronger than the strong position.  Like here.  And please, any aspiring presidential candidates take note, this will work.
       Explain to our good friends the Chinese that we have no ability to pay them back as long as we keep buying their goods.  We need to either have our debt absolved, and we in turn would forgive the debts owed us by other sovereign nations; or we will need to heavily tariff or outright embargo all goods originating in their country, in order to generate the revenue to pay them back.  We are very sorry.  You have been very kind to us, but you had to have seen this coming as much as we did.  
       Then step back and let them make the decision.  It's their money, after all.  Or solution no one wants to hear.  We form a trade federation.  A super-national organization like the E.U.  This one though would be just us and China, maybe Brazil, if they care to play nice for a change.  Put aside our differences and realize exactly how much of the planet's GDP is represented by just those three countries.  Add in Japan and Germany and we would then have a world government.
       Option three is simple enough: learn Mandarin or Cantonese.  You'll need it if we keep doing what we've been doing.

Not By Enough

       You, no doubt, will have heard of the killings in Libya of an ambassador and others over a movie.  That's right a movie that made "the prophet" look bad.  Take the time to google the movie "Innocence of Muslims".  I can't really link to it because it keeps being taken down.
       Five seconds tells you this is not a big-budget film.  This is basement quality, maybe.  But apparently, despite the majority of Americans never having heard of it, represents everyone's views.  So much so we are all held accountable for it.  Seriously, its getting old being the good guy.
       Is it time to hold an entire nation accountable for the actions of a few idiots?  I think there are a few people here who would be OK with turning the entire Middle-East into a green sheet of glass right now.  Frankly, its hard to argue against it.  (or so I've heard, I generally argue in favor of it)
       If we retaliate for this however; would we be any better than them?  In the words of Lrrr, Ruler of Omicron Persei 8; "Yes, but not by enough."  We can't just blow up entire countries over crap like this, because frankly, they all do it.  It would feel good for a while, sure, but solve nothing.
       I advocate leaving the idiots to rot.  Electric cars now, powered by batteries, (or ultra-capacitors) charged by safe, renewable, modern nuclear power plants.  Until we can develop solar, wind, and wave enough to be viable, anyway.  (If that can even be done).  For the interim, until they are built, we drill, we mine, and we make do.
     Once we devalue the one thing they have that is of any worth, they will cease to matter and can throw rocks at each other until the end of time.  No one else would care enough to be there.  Not even to watch.
       Then, once the immediate issues are addressed, we develop some other technology to move our wheels of industry.  Something free and abundant.  Say, a solar cell powering electrodes and low voltage pumps, extracting hydrogen from water, to use in fuel cells.  Oh, wait we can do that now.  (Honda has a test track and car that use this set-up)  Surely then, there is some reason we don't.
       It's almost like someone must want the primitives in the Middle-East to have power.  (I know they were a center of learning long before the western world, but seriously the world has moved past 1400; they haven't).  So like most ideas presented here, this will be left behind because it conflicts with the greed of those in charge.  Democrat, Republican, Tastycrat, Fingerlican, it doesn't matter.  Our politicians are "in-pocket" to the petroleum industry.

Why Drew Peterson being found guilty should keep you up at night.

       I will begin with by stating that I know the man is guilty.  We all know he is guilty.  But what did not occur is the state proving he was guilty.  Or even that a crime occurred.  There are a host of other issues as well.  I will detail them all and then explain why you should be scared.
       First, Illinois passed a law specifically to allow hearsay evidence, in this case.   There is a fancy Latin term for that which my brother knows, but escapes me currently. (and my best effort with an hour searching online.)  The reason there is a legal term for this type of law is that it is unlawful to pass such a law.  But hey, this is Illinois, we've never let that stop us.
       Part of this complaint is that the law was passed after the crime was committed and before the trial.  He should have been "grandfathered" into a group to which this law could not legally be applied.  Any other time this would have been the case.  But again, welcome to Illinois.
       The reason this is bothersome is that it removes a defendants right to cross examine.  In this case third party testimony from the deceased was allowed to be weighted as first hand (from the deceased) instead of removed as hearsay.  Remember this important fact.
       Second, the state could not prove there was a crime committed.  Their own expert witness stated, under oath, that there was a possibility that the death was an accident.  That alone should have been enough for a "not guilty" verdict.  Not to belabor the point but, Illinois.
       Third, They could not illustrate, let alone prove, he was anywhere near the scene where this "possible" crime occurred.  Again, that should have been enough for a "not guilty" verdict.  But again, law has never stood in the way of political expedience in Illinois.
       Why should the bending of the law to convict the obviously guilty bother me so?  The obvious answer is because the next guy might not be so obviously guilty, or even guilty.  He might just be someone who had an unrelated argument with a vengeful neighbor.
       Say there was a "suspicious" death.  I decide that my neighbor "Bob" is really pissing me off lately.  What with his always mowing his lawn early and leaving his grass clippings on my sidewalk.  I find someone, say my brother, or wife, or brother's wife, to come with me and claim we heard the deceased person say they were afraid Bob would come and kill them.  If the case went the way Drew Peterson's did, he would be cooling his early-mowing heels behind bars.
       That is exactly what happened here.  Any of you could be singled out.  Say someone who was extraordinarily vocal about the obvious corruption in this festering  cesspool of a state.  Hey, I know that guy.

The same side

       I recently received my first external comment on a post I had written.  It was critical.  The only surprise is that it took this long.  The person "called me out" as someone who sounded like they have never had to struggle.  This is funny.  We used to hang out at a buddy's house, as kids, because his family, on public aid, could afford to run their air conditioner while we, supported by work, could not.
       Rather than launch into a post critical of those on public aid, I will use this space to target the true villains.  I am referring, of course to our public officials.  Not because they have allowed this to happen; (I feel a society that can take care of its needy is truly enlightened) but because they have mismanaged the rest of my tax dollars to the point of causing problems for everyone.
       See the whole link card program makes up a very small portion of an otherwise bloated budget.  And really, putting a better class of food in a child's mouth is not a sin.  But because it is yet another wasteful cog in the refuse generator that is Illinois government, I took undue notice.
       It isn't fair to single out this program, which at least benefits some people who need it, when our state loses more each to; questionable accounting practices, corruption, entitlement, patronage, and insider deals.
       I guess what I'm getting at, is that I fell into the trap the bastards set for me.  I started to blame other taxpayers, as though we are actually on different sides, rather than attack the corrupt system, run by corrupt politicians, who have gamed all of us into thinking we need to fight each other; rather than fight the source of our problems.  In short, if the rest of my redistributed "wealth" were being stewarded properly, I would never have given a thought to the link card being accepted by Market Day.

Why Are American Men So Fat?

             I was recently pondering the reasons that the United States has such a problem with obesity. I cannot accept that it is as simple as an entire country slipping into bad habits and sedentary lifestyles. True, American food is usually consumed on the run with little consideration for its nutritional content or even its flavor.  And it is also true that Americans do not lead very active lifestyles anymore. Gone are the days of the brawny farmer who maintains his shape through old age by working hard and eating fresh foods. But the shift from home cooked meals and sitting back in easy chairs cannot be the only answer.

             So I present to you my theory of why American men have become fat. (Ladies, you have your own reasons and problems which I do not understand at all.) I believe that the majority of men become obese because they are profoundly unhappy.

             Take a look at how the male in American society is treated. He is either blamed for everything or portrayed as a Neanderthal with no use except for a target for ridicule by women. (I call this the “Everybody Loves Raymond” effect.) If he is not sensitive enough he is labeled as a brute, too sensitive and he is not “man” enough. Men are now the only politically correct target of ridicule. Listen to any radio station and within minutes you will hear a commercial where a man is portrayed as little more than a bacon chewing, beer swilling, caveman.

              Men are strong and thoughtful and in the past they had redoubts (man talk for a safe place or fort) that they would fall back to in times of crisis. Hobbies and sports and working on cars, all manly activities that were misunderstood but accepted by women. Women could watch the kids for a few hours while the man cut the grass or fixed his carburetor. Men did not do these things because they wanted to escape their families, they did them to take a second to catch their breath and focus on one thing until the rest of the world didn’t seem so bad.

              Now don’t take this as an indictment of women. It isn’t. Women can’t watch the kids for an hour or two anymore because they are at work busting their asses the same way that men are in order to feed their families. I just don’t know enough (or anything) about women to say whether they would want to go work on a carburetor or not.

             Home life and lack of free time is not the only problem. The economy, unemployment, rampant idiocy, and a thousand other things conspire to make American men miserable. So where does a man turn to get an instant feeling of good will? With some addictive personalities excepted, most men will eventually find food. Food makes you feel good. Food tastes great and can be enjoyed any time of the day. And men can eat whatever they want because they are just one step removed from flint knapping or throwing rocks at an obsidian obelisk.

And what kinds of food are we expected to eat? Smart men will often become “foodies” which is an idiotic way to say that they know how to cook and take the same diligent approach to cooking that they used to take building a fence or hand crafting a duck decoy. These men aren’t killing themselves any slower; they are just doing it fancier.

            Some men will take the easy way out and dine on fast or processed foods and then wonder why they aren’t at their high school weight anymore and be unhappy… and then guess what they do?

The food isn’t the problem and women aren’t the problem and society isn’t the problem. Men themselves are the problem. We have forgotten what it is that makes us men. Not the beer swilling apes that ad campaign would mold us into but the kind of man that your grandfather and if you are lucky, your father is. The kind of man that would do something right, not because it benefits him the most, but because it’s just how things should be done. This is what we should go back to. Being strong, mentally, spiritually and yes physically is part of what it is to be a man.

            Because men are strong, they sometimes feel that it is necessary to bear the weight of everything that is wrong without complaint. This internalizing of suffering is a big factor in being miserable and fat. If no one understands why you are so unhappy, then the only thing for you to do, perhaps, is sit at home and eat.

           So what is the solution? First, talk to people about why you are unhappy. You got married for a reason. Your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend if you go that way, would rather have you be happy and whole then mopey and fat. If not then, run like hell away from that person. Do you think your significant other would rather be around and unhappy fat slob or a healthier man with a “can do” attitude and fire in his belly. (not from spicy chicken nuggets)

          Also, it is essential to do the things that make you feel like a man, whatever they are. Fix something. Break something. Shoot something. Hit a golf ball or a jump shot. Whatever it is that makes you feel connected to the universe and closer to the Creator if only for a brief moment.

Lastly, realize that as a man you must be strong and sometimes other people will need your strength. Let them use it. Help your fellow man, whether he is your neighbor or some stranger you don’t know. These people might actually see you as a strong man and follow your example and before you know it the world might suck a little less and you might not need to supersize your fries.

          Lastly, If you have a significant other that is willing to help you recapture your lost happiness, you need to realize that she might need you to be strong for her or to do something so that she can do the things that make her feel more like a woman. (Whatever women do instead of fixing carbs) Just knowingly nod to her and don’t judge what she is doing. Just remember that some of the stuff you think is captivating, she sees as baffling.

Too f-ing far.

       I was made privy to knowledge that I ordinarily remain ignorant of; my daughters' school supply lists.  One daughter needs 7 (seven) dozen pencils, and the other 5 (five) dozen; in unbroken, new packs.  Pencils come in packs of 10 (TEN).  The reason they need so many, I have been told, is to supply the kids who don't have any.  The list always asks for a ridiculous amount to be supplied and then they send them home with most of them at the end of the year, so I don't think they are being used to redistribute the wealth, but seriously, why 7 dozen?
       Last year they needed dry erase markers, so when asked, they could write on the board.  God forbid they use one that someone else had touched!?  But the king of all stupidity, the straw that broke the camel's back, is the ruler.  (pun intended)  One child is required to have a wooden ruler.  You can tell me my child needs a ruler.  You can even say it needs a straight-edge on it.  But to specify the material?  What the f#@% difference does it make?
       If an inner-city teacher specifies plastic only, out of fear that the metal on the edge of the wooden ones could be sharpened, I would understand.  If a mechanical drawing class requires an architect's scale, I get it. But this is crossing the line.  I will only be nannied so far.
       Mind you this is not the same for each child.  Different grades require different tools.  I get that.  No problem.  But your child's list depends on your child's teacher, (not state, not district, not school, not grade) and that is another point where I call B.S.  The teacher's individual preference should not decide how much my child's school supplies cost.  The argument is, of course, teaching is facilitated by standardization.  Fine, but it starts with the teachers.  The teachers for each grade need to get together and decide, grade-by-grade what is needed.
       Of course I have the option of placing my children in a private school, and paying twice for the privilege.  Also I could home-school them, at the expense of social growth.  But why should any of us put up with such petty intrusions.  I'm not angry about this despite how petty it is, I'm angry BECAUSE of how petty it is.
       There is a basic issue at the heart of this.  This issue is one that is touching every corner of our country.  A consummate lack of accountability.  When I didn't bring in enough pencils, I suffered.  My bad planning was related to my parents via a note sent home to be signed, and I learned to be responsible.
       What message is being taught here.  You (well, your parents) pay for things that are turned over to a government appointee; who will distribute them back to you on an as need basis.  No personal accountability.  Dependence on "authority", to provide for your needs.  You can't be trusted to be accountable for yourself.
       If it seems like I'm reading a lot into this; it is because I am.  But this story is just used to highlight the flaws in a system that I have been cataloging since my oldest began school.  Don't worry though, they are being taught important things like: "You have to do something nice for the Earth every day."   (and God, I wish I were kidding.)  If I want my children indoctrinated, I'll send them to church, or I'll do it myself.  I don't need public schools, that I pay for, to indoctrinate my children into a credo, to which I do not subscribe.

S 3414 Cyber Gun Control.

http://votesmart.org/bill/15638/41248#41248

       A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves.  This of course is in the guise of "cyber security".  While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
       An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban.  I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups.  The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
       Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem.  At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill.  Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
       The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill.  End this behavior now.  How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it.  Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone.  This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit.  (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
       Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty.  Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill.  (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
       If only there were some other way to get this done.  Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...

       But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote.  A man can dream, can't he.
     

Healthcare: A Uniquely American Solution.

       After much thinking, and more discussion, (yes, that was intentional) I have arrived at a solution, agreeable to both sides, for the problem with America's healthcare system.  Again, this is why it is important to think before you act.  (ahem, Congress, Mr. President)  I hope that whichever person wins the Presidency, and the new Congress, will see this and at least think it over.
       First, let's discuss what the problems are.  Insurance costs too much.  Many people are denied it because of this.  Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for.  And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism.  (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
       We all know it needs to be fixed.  We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel.  Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit.  I could go on...
       The fix is simple.  Treat insurance like any other contract business.  That's it.  Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world.  If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
       This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it.  (making the wealthy happy)  It would not demand that an American company operate without profit.  Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life.  That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry.  The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
       Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient.  (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.)  Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute.  (keeping the lawyers employed)  That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants.  If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that.  This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage.  (making the middle class happy)
       Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks.  Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid.  End of story.  The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight.  To a point where more people could afford it. 
       If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that.  We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability.  Then apply that standard evenly in all states.  Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
       This would reduce costs further.  Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment.  If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage.  (making the "working poor" happy)  While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid.  (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
       Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance.  What happens when they go in to the hospital?  Either they don't pay, or they get public aid.  Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
       With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills.  (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
       As always, I welcome responses.  (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)

Governor Quinn proposed assault weapons ban.

       http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57484162/illinois-gov-proposes-state-assault-weapons-ban/    (1)

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf   (2)

http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75    (3)

       There.  Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it.  I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain.  Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban.  He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
       The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
       This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court.  As in the following:

       "The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form."  (3)
     
       So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks.  Not changing the entire purpose of the bill.  Why is it important to limit this power?

       "An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies."  (3)

       So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die.  It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
       Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships.  It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing.  Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
       This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois.  Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
       Again, this is not about guns.  My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
       Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:

       "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  (1)

Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one.  Membership:

       "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."   (1)

       Those exempted by law are felons, by the way.  So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois.  And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...

WTF is a Kiyi?

       The short answer is a fish.  The kiyi is a fish.  You have never heard of this fish and neither, apparently, has my spell checker.  The kiyi is a fish that is supposed to be in ridiculous proliferation in the great lakes, as is the cisco, the bloater, many types of sculpin, the harelip sucker, many types of herring, and the lake sturgeon, as well as a host of others.  The Atlantic salmon, (silver to many of you) was native to only lake Ontario, so could be considered a "native species" of sorts.  But only here.  It is an introduced species in the pacific northwest.  (sorry, its true).  The Lake trout is the only large sport-fish, currently in any numbers, that has any business in the Great Lakes.

       http://www.glfc.org/research/Nativefish.htm

http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/envt/fish/fish_4.html

       As fascinating as those two pages are, please take a moment and peruse the next link.  Along the left, in blue, is a list of the non-native species now in the great lakes.  Each is a link that will tell you more about the fish.  http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/nofnonindig.html 
       Notice anything odd?  Anything at all?  Something like; every single "sport-fishing" species is either invasive, or introduced.  Some, like the salmon, are aggressively stocked every year.  Why would this bother a lifelong fisherman, like myself?
       We spend tons of cash (yes, literally) to stock the great lakes with introduced species.  We spend even more money trying to control "invasive species" like Asian carp and zebra mussels.  The short version is that depending on the species we are wasting a lot of money to stock, or de-stock certain species.
       The exact cost is proving difficult to pin down.  I know you expect better of me than this excuse; I expect better of me too.  But the Great Lakes are bordered by many states, several provinces, two countries, and multiple DNR's, each of which has their own budgeting, stocking strategy, and poorly maintained public information sites.

       So when we hear these news reports about the horrible infestations of invasive species threatening our native fish in the Great Lakes; think back on the first paragraph here.  Those aren't the "Native" species they are talking about.  They are talking about the Salmon, that have no business there in the first place.

       Thanks go out to my brother in law, who speaks on this topic a lot.  Also, he is invited to write his own posts, (on any topic he likes) here.  (Seriously Gob, just let me know and I'll add you as an author.)

Children. What they don't tell you.

       I am keeping to my vow to not discuss politically contentious issues here while they are emotional ones. Instead I am presenting another "what they don't tell you"


       "Oh! you're having a baby.  How wonderful.  It's so rewarding to be a parent."


       Not to disparage this attitude, because it is rewarding, but there are many things that get left out.  A baby's cry is the exact frequency and tone to disrupt sleep.  That is not my opinion, (well it is, but also) it has been proven scientifically.  (I'm too lazy to reference the study, so I'm following the media's example and just saying things without citing a source.)
       All children are bipolar, diabetic, sociopaths.  They are Bipolar because they swing from the highs to the lows instantly.  this eventually wears on the parents, who become a bit like this themselves.  I say they are diabetic because they get cranky, unreasonable, and a bit crazed if they don't get a constant supply of food, and completely manic when given sugar.
       The sociopath thing is more complicated, but true, because all of us are sociopaths until we learn that we are not the center of the universe.  For some it never really goes away.  For kids, they are the center of the universe, because to them the universe is mommy and daddy.  As their perception increases, mental conflicts are caused by the dawning realization that they are insignificant, in the grand scheme of things. (as are we all)
       It would be good if we were told upfront just how much quality of life changes for the worse. I love my kids and they are wonderful. Truly I never understood what love was before having children. They have made me a better, more thoughtful person.
       This is because if I hadn't become more thoughtful, I would have gone completely insane. No sleep, no time to think, no ability to spend time "decompressing", and no time to spend with my wife, (alternating shifts) let alone friends, (with their own lives, or kids) adds up to becoming either more contemplative, or homicidal.

There are those who will think me a monster for having written this. And there are those who are parents.

Relax. That is why we keep the booze to ourselves.

Colorado Shooting.

       We have all heard about the tragedy.  We all know the young man with a degree in neuroscience was a little off in the head.  It is a shame that someone could do something like that.  But there is a worse crime happening in its wake.
       There are those (mayors of L.A. and NY notably) who are using this event, before any facts are known, as a way to further their anti-gun agenda.  Demanding that the President, and the man running against him immediately declare what they are going to do about this.  "How do we keep this from happening again?"
       They want, essentially, the cart before the horse.  We don't yet even know what exactly happened, or why this young man snapped.  Or even why he booby trapped his apartment (by all appearances).  Yet there are those who will use any tragedy to further their own agenda.
       Why not wait, find out the facts, and then, if necessary, act.  I say "if necessary" because this is obviously a determined, insane, person.  No law will ever stop a determined, insane person.  This type of knee jerk reaction is understandable from a grieving parent, or a wounded bystander.  From a politician it is unacceptably filthy politics.
       I would point out to that demand tougher laws based on the action of one person invites a host of troubles.  I will refrain from my normal, condescendingly simple, examples; so as not to play at the same petty politics that others so willingly foul themselves with.

       First, let's find out exactly what happened.  Second, we need time to heal.  Third, debate whether change to the law may be needed, or whether this was just an isolated incident.  (again, laws cannot be based on the actions of a determined, insane person.) Fourth, after all of this is done, and if it is determined that a change is required, we need to find the best course of action.
       Any politician, journalist, blogger etc., demanding immediate action after this,or any other tragedy, is merely attempting to profiteer from it.  Those people, no matter what side of the aisle they represent, should be charged with inciting a riot.  (Research what that entails before disagreeing)  They certainly should not be re-elected.
       To any who have kept their peace, kept silent, and are waiting for the facts to be known: bravo!  There is hope for you yet.

"Keep calm and carry on"

College: What they didn't tell you.

       So there you are.  Freshman again.  all set to reforge your identity to a more hip version of you.  You will have been warned about the upperclassmen, the "freshman 20", and maybe even local spots to avoid.  Mom and Dad just pulled away and its just you and your dormie.  Unless, like me your broke ass went to community college for the first half, and walked 2 1/2 miles each way (Not kidding) because after tuition and books you had no money left for the bus, and damn sure not enough for a car.
       No matter.  The part that you were not warned about remains the same.  I am looking for the most delicate way to phrase this, and I think I have found it.  No one gives a shit.  That's right, you heard it here first.  The reason college kids act crazy, dress crazy, and generally do other stupid things is that suddenly they are confronted with a world where no one cares.
       You are friends with everyone, and close To no one.  Maybe you know what you want to be when you grow up, maybe you don't.  Either way, no one cares.  Talk to a counselor.  They have no frickin idea what classes comprise your major.  Don't care either.  So you look it up yourself.  They tell you you are wrong and need fewer credit hours than you thought.  You trust them, after all they do this for a living.  But guess what?  They have no vested interest in you.  Next time you go looking for a counselor, odds are it will be someone else you talk to.  Either way you end up n school a semester, or two, longer than you should because of someone else's apathy.
       The professors are a study in apathy.  Unless you are flirty and they are the sort to take advantage.  Then they care for as long as you put out.  Otherwise, on the "give-a-crap-o-meter", you don't even register.  Again, mostly because you will be gone a short time from now.  You are just another blank face, hung over and not paying attention, who will bitch if you get less than an "A", even though we all know you deserve an "F".  Colleges just push you through, so long as you pay.  That professor came by their apathy the hard way. When they tried to fail one too many people who deserved it, and had a long talk about the effect failure rates have on funding, with a half-wit administrator who only sees you as dollar signs.
       The exception of course is the gifted person.  They care a lot about you, and keeping you in a major they teach.  So they can take credit for/steal your work.  That book isn't going to publish itself.
       The overall tone is one of transience.  You will move on soon enough.  So college is a world where there are no consequences, and thus, no one cares.
       The other thing they don't tell you is that there are consequences... but that is another post.

New type of post in the rotation.

       In addition to the consumer studies, political prosthelytizing, and general rambling; I will be adding a new type of post.  One that will be informative, to those who have been led astray.  The theme is "things they didn't tell you".  It is meant to be a tool to help you, gentle reader, to deal with unexpected things that really should not be unexpected things.  I suspect many of you will either: A) nod along while reading, having been through the same thing, B) deny that such a thing could be true, or C) become depressed and alcoholic.  The next post will be one of these.  I will try to cover life events in the order they are likely to happen to you.  (provided you are past high school, or at least high school age.)  So in that vein, next up will be college: what they didn't tell you.

How Chicago keeps you safe

       Recently I was in a gun store with my father and brother.  The owner was trying to talk my dad into buying an old revolver from the case because they would be gone soon.  

       "Why, you got a buyer?" my dad says. 

       "No, Chicago's doing another gun buyback.  I get a hundred dollar gift card for each of them, no limit."

       "No limit?"

       "Yeah, you go to one of these things and all the guns have tags on 'em.  They're all from stores."

       So let's review the stupid here.  First, this costs a crap-ton of taxpayer money, in an already bankrupt city.  Sounds like a bad idea, because it is.  I can't imagine the teachers, who did not get a contracted raise, and have already voted in favor of a strike, will miss this item when the city claims it has no money for raises during the coming negotiations.

       Second, these guns are not checked against the database of stolen firearms.  Apply that logic to a car, or computer turn in.  No questions asked, they are destroyed.  The real owner will never see that expensive item again.  Sounds bad, is bad.  Especially when you consider that law enforcement has an obligation to return stolen goods to their owners.  

       Third.  If the firearm had been used in a murder, the odds of solving that murder just went down to zero.  These guns are accepted, "no questions asked", and destroyed.  I guess Chicago figures they can't afford to hire enough detectives anyway, so why have them actually solve murders.  They need to spend their time pressing felony charges against recreational pot smokers... but that is another post.  (I know they are working toward misdemeanor tickets, I just don't think it will happen there, it makes too damn much sense)

       Fourth, as the owner of the gun store pointed out, criminals don't turn in guns at these things, (unless they need evidence destroyed) but store owners with non-functioning junk pistols do.  I do think we should always help our small business owners, but this is not the way to do it.   

       But hey, if you need to plan a murder, the city of Chicago nicely posts the dates and times of all the gun turn in events.  Turn the damn thing in warm and still smoking.  They won't care, as long as they are "Keeping you safe, by keeping guns off the streets"

       Glad I can watch this mess from afar and laugh at it.  (Not far enough, but far).