While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
6 types of people to ban from your meetings.
I once swore I would never do this. Blog about another blog. But this is sort-of a request.
First, read this from LinkedIn. (http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131020181102-6200057-6-types-of-thinkers-to-seek-for-your-team?fb_action_ids=10152188806967345&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A485331731564335%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D)
Then ask yourself if the first example of each type you could think of, is worth having at a meeting. While the article referenced above places a positive spin on these personality types, for each one there is a negative counterpart. Let's disassemble this, shall we?
1. The Dreamer. This person cannot bring their lofty ideas back down into the real world, and will derail any attempt to do what is feasible, because it is not what they envision. They will not listen to reason, even when it comes from every other team member. Often they are mired in the overly fond, and usually incorrect, memories of how good things used to be. They can drag down the team by stopping realistic goals from being met.
2. The Debater. This is the person who will contradict everything anyone else says, simply because they didn't say it. Often they will argue against a point they have already made, if someone else restates it. Many of them are convinced they are contributing by "keeping you down-to-earth", or "keeping it real." They can sap energy from the team by wasting time (the single most precious resource you have) with needless debate of trivial, or misguided, points.
3. The Disruptor. The diverse, worldly, divergent viewpoint is not always helpful. No one cares what the current fashions are in Zimbabwe, when you are selling in Tallahassee. This person can destroy productivity with the constant derailing of the right ideas. Sometimes an idea out of left-field is just that, and nothing more. This is the most insidious of the negatives, as the difference between this being helpful, or time-wasting, is completely dependent on circumstance.
4. The (backseat) Driver. This is the person in the room who feels they should be in charge, and will take action against the actual leader. Whether they are right, or not, is completely academic, of course; because they are not in charge. Sometimes confrontive, sometimes back-stabbing, they will always work to undermine the authority of the actual leader.
5. The Detailer. This is the person who will ask for every single minute detail of any plan, example, story, anecdote, etc. Their constant request for needless, unhelpful, and monotonous detail will keep everyone else in the room from contributing; just because they don't want to answer foolish questions.
6. The Doer. Who could speak ill of the person who get things done? Someone who has worked with someone who does things before they are ready. (Several firearms related idioms ahead) The ones who "go off half-cocked", jump the gun, or shoot first and ask questions later. These are the people who can ruin the timing of a project, or worse, telegraph it to the competition.
The way to address all of these are the same. Ask them to leave and not come back. When that doesn't work, tell them. Usually the group will follow your lead, and tell them they are wrong, even when you aren't there to hear it. Most importantly, learn to recognize when you are flipping from the positive side of one of these, to the negative. No one is wholly the negative aspect, or the positive. They oscillate. Make yourself valuable by learning how to be quiet when you drift into this territory. And above all, listen when someone tell you you've gone off track.
First, read this from LinkedIn. (http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131020181102-6200057-6-types-of-thinkers-to-seek-for-your-team?fb_action_ids=10152188806967345&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A485331731564335%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D)
Then ask yourself if the first example of each type you could think of, is worth having at a meeting. While the article referenced above places a positive spin on these personality types, for each one there is a negative counterpart. Let's disassemble this, shall we?
1. The Dreamer. This person cannot bring their lofty ideas back down into the real world, and will derail any attempt to do what is feasible, because it is not what they envision. They will not listen to reason, even when it comes from every other team member. Often they are mired in the overly fond, and usually incorrect, memories of how good things used to be. They can drag down the team by stopping realistic goals from being met.
2. The Debater. This is the person who will contradict everything anyone else says, simply because they didn't say it. Often they will argue against a point they have already made, if someone else restates it. Many of them are convinced they are contributing by "keeping you down-to-earth", or "keeping it real." They can sap energy from the team by wasting time (the single most precious resource you have) with needless debate of trivial, or misguided, points.
3. The Disruptor. The diverse, worldly, divergent viewpoint is not always helpful. No one cares what the current fashions are in Zimbabwe, when you are selling in Tallahassee. This person can destroy productivity with the constant derailing of the right ideas. Sometimes an idea out of left-field is just that, and nothing more. This is the most insidious of the negatives, as the difference between this being helpful, or time-wasting, is completely dependent on circumstance.
4. The (backseat) Driver. This is the person in the room who feels they should be in charge, and will take action against the actual leader. Whether they are right, or not, is completely academic, of course; because they are not in charge. Sometimes confrontive, sometimes back-stabbing, they will always work to undermine the authority of the actual leader.
5. The Detailer. This is the person who will ask for every single minute detail of any plan, example, story, anecdote, etc. Their constant request for needless, unhelpful, and monotonous detail will keep everyone else in the room from contributing; just because they don't want to answer foolish questions.
6. The Doer. Who could speak ill of the person who get things done? Someone who has worked with someone who does things before they are ready. (Several firearms related idioms ahead) The ones who "go off half-cocked", jump the gun, or shoot first and ask questions later. These are the people who can ruin the timing of a project, or worse, telegraph it to the competition.
The way to address all of these are the same. Ask them to leave and not come back. When that doesn't work, tell them. Usually the group will follow your lead, and tell them they are wrong, even when you aren't there to hear it. Most importantly, learn to recognize when you are flipping from the positive side of one of these, to the negative. No one is wholly the negative aspect, or the positive. They oscillate. Make yourself valuable by learning how to be quiet when you drift into this territory. And above all, listen when someone tell you you've gone off track.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Affordable Protection Act Part 2. Implementation and Constitutionality.
In part one we examined why the Affordable Protection Act is necessary and cost-effective. Now we will examine how it could roll out, and why it is constitutional.
Implementation:
This would not require any major preparation, or pre-collection of taxes (which the Affordable Care Act did require), to work. We simply make a law that every member of the militia, as defined previously, is required to own, and carry, a firearm. I did not say pistol, and I did not say concealed. Others may carry a firearm (insurance) on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise ineligible.
The legal reason given for the requirement for concealment is to not incite alarm or panic in the public. If everyone is armed, then the sight of a gun will not incite anything. (Except Hoplophobes, but we don't ban bridges or clowns just because of a few peoples' neuroses). In fact seeing a firearm should never incite anything, unless it is pointed at you. People who panic at the sight of a holstered weapon are the problem, not the person peacefully carrying it.
If anyone in the militia decided they did not want to carry a firearm, they would not be forced. But, due to the added strain they would be putting on the system, they would have to pay a penalty. (Just like the Affordable Care act.) Unlike the Affordable Care Act however, I will allow for those of means, who do not wish to carry a firearm (insurance) to opt out if they can prove they have people in their employ for such a purpose. (adequate money set aside for healthcare)
Constitutionality:
In their landmark decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty, and in fact the insurance requirement itself, could be construed as a tax. By that measure it is constitutional. They are required, it was stated, in cases where there are multiple interpretations of a law, and one of them is constitutional; to use that interpretation in their decision, and disregard any other interpretation.
That same rationale would dictate that requiring the purchase, or proof of current ownership, of a firearm, and the penalty for non-compliance; would be a tax, and therefore within the scope of congressional authority to legally require.
Please forward this to your representatives in Washington D.C.
The Affordable Protection Act Part 1. History and justification of need.
I am going to suggest a new law, based on the legal precedent set by the affordable care act. But first, let's look at how we arrived at the need for each. The current problems, and the laws allowing them, came about because of the political pull of special interest groups with very deep pockets. The laws put in place by the politicians representing them allowed for the creation of two classes of people.
While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not. I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms. The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name. The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns. If you are out on parole, for example. Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example. But the list is about that short. Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals). Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
Sounds funny? Allow me to continue. The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right. Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution. We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue. What we don't hear is historic context. The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry. A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence. They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations. Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do. (Go ahead, laugh. It was meant as a joke)
Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone. (emphasis added)
(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.
While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not. I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms. The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name. The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns. If you are out on parole, for example. Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example. But the list is about that short. Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals). Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
Sounds funny? Allow me to continue. The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right. Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution. We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue. What we don't hear is historic context. The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry. A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence. They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations. Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do. (Go ahead, laugh. It was meant as a joke)
Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone. (emphasis added)
(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Why we are really shut down.
A recent (cough) debate on facebook sparked this piece. It followed the opinions of a person, clearly of a liberal bent, and another, decidedly of a conservative one. It went about like you'd expect. I threw in a few things too. Mostly because both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in equal measure.
Let me explain. The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act. The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided. This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative. It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.
The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home." This is exactly correct. Yes, I said it. We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws. If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be. If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again. To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes. This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act. No Gay marriage, etc. These things are of course, also true. (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)
I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground. Which brings me to my point. The thing I have made the point of my existence actually. Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt. Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.
See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican. From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist. (bravo, see you at the meetings). Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican. Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.
A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place. They would be fixing the education system. As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher. We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.
A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business. As in they wouldn't care who married whom. They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing. And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.
Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys. Really. We need better options.
Let me explain. The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act. The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided. This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative. It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.
The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home." This is exactly correct. Yes, I said it. We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws. If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be. If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again. To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes. This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act. No Gay marriage, etc. These things are of course, also true. (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)
I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground. Which brings me to my point. The thing I have made the point of my existence actually. Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt. Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.
See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican. From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist. (bravo, see you at the meetings). Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican. Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.
A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place. They would be fixing the education system. As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher. We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.
A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business. As in they wouldn't care who married whom. They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing. And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.
Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys. Really. We need better options.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Non Sequitur: Do you love your job?
I once told a manager of mine that, while I enjoy my work, it would never come before my family. While this is typically viewed as career suicide, I have reasoned this out. It comes down to defining love. But first, lets look at my job.
I work for a company so large, you are currently sitting where you can see something they made. You may not know it, and I'm not going to say who they are, due to corporate policy. Which is point one: rather than say you can't ever mention your job, or that you can't blog, or even that you are not allowed to speak ill of the company, they simply made a policy that you don't disclose precisely who you work for online. A well-reasoned, smart policy, actually.
Also, they pay above scale. The benefits to the employee are simple: higher pay. The benefits to the employer are manifold. They gain higher morale, better productivity, (because someone is waiting for you to vacate that seat) and generally, a better class of employee. This idea is so old, and so obviously beneficial to the company, that Henry Ford himself, notorious cheapskate, used it.
My benefits package is what you would expect from a company that size, and my 401k is managed by better fund managers than yours. Overall, they are a great employer who respects the workforce they have. Yet I do not love my job.
I enjoy my work. I am doing the kind of work that is challenging, and for the most part, fun. I am surrounded by like-minded people who enjoy the job at least as much as I do. The conditions are good, the commute is less than the national average. Overall I am happy there. Yet I do not love my job.
Love is not only a mutual exchange, it is something that has a clear definition. It is putting someone else's needs before your own. When you love someone, that is what you do.
My employer does not love me. They respect me. I do not want my employer to love me. I want them to respect me. They do not put their needs ahead of mine. The benefits, pay, etc. are not examples of putting my needs first; rather they exemplify the acknowledgement of my needs. Each of those benefits comes with an offsetting benefit to the company. Mostly this takes the form of a better workforce.
I do not love my employer. I respect them. (Well, as much as I'm capable of respecting anyone, or anything.) My family, I love. Love conquers all.
I work for a company so large, you are currently sitting where you can see something they made. You may not know it, and I'm not going to say who they are, due to corporate policy. Which is point one: rather than say you can't ever mention your job, or that you can't blog, or even that you are not allowed to speak ill of the company, they simply made a policy that you don't disclose precisely who you work for online. A well-reasoned, smart policy, actually.
Also, they pay above scale. The benefits to the employee are simple: higher pay. The benefits to the employer are manifold. They gain higher morale, better productivity, (because someone is waiting for you to vacate that seat) and generally, a better class of employee. This idea is so old, and so obviously beneficial to the company, that Henry Ford himself, notorious cheapskate, used it.
My benefits package is what you would expect from a company that size, and my 401k is managed by better fund managers than yours. Overall, they are a great employer who respects the workforce they have. Yet I do not love my job.
I enjoy my work. I am doing the kind of work that is challenging, and for the most part, fun. I am surrounded by like-minded people who enjoy the job at least as much as I do. The conditions are good, the commute is less than the national average. Overall I am happy there. Yet I do not love my job.
Love is not only a mutual exchange, it is something that has a clear definition. It is putting someone else's needs before your own. When you love someone, that is what you do.
My employer does not love me. They respect me. I do not want my employer to love me. I want them to respect me. They do not put their needs ahead of mine. The benefits, pay, etc. are not examples of putting my needs first; rather they exemplify the acknowledgement of my needs. Each of those benefits comes with an offsetting benefit to the company. Mostly this takes the form of a better workforce.
I do not love my employer. I respect them. (Well, as much as I'm capable of respecting anyone, or anything.) My family, I love. Love conquers all.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Guest author opinion piece
I spent a pleasant afternoon recently with an old friend I met while attending Thunderwood College. She went on a rant about something and I asked her to write it down, for ourselves and our posterity. I present it in a barely altered form, below. And remember this was a rant, not a well-reasoned pontification. Any resemblance to anyone is likely intended, but for legal reasons, stated otherwise. Please do not send in commentary on this, I didn't compose it.
7:04 PM (0 minutes ago)
 | | |||
Hi, long time no see. It was great talking to you the other day at <redacted>. I have copy-pasted my opinion piece that you wanted to publish for your blog. It is a bit below your normal standards, and somewhat profanity laced, but hey, you know how I roll. Tell <redacted>, <redacted>, <redacted>, and <redacted> I said hi. Pet <redacted> for me.
Later beyotch
Ann
When I was in High School a trend had already begun. Not the tight jeans or tube tops or poodle perms. A trend in education that should have died a screaming fire-death long ago. Kids weren't stupid anymore. I can see not calling them "retards", that is just mean. But you couldn't call them slow, dumb, or any other synonym for less than average. They had a learning disability. They all had the same learning disability actually. The fad diagnosis of the day was dyslexia. Every dumb-as was not a dumb-ass, they were dyslexic. There isn't a connection between IQ and dyslexia, and maybe the smart ones who had it didn't need special classes. But it sure seems there was a decade where a bunch of kids have it, and now the numbers are back down.
That brings me to my point. The fad diagnosis of today is Asperger's Syndrome. Are there people who have it, sure. As many as they say? Not on your life. It just seems that every kid who didn't get put in a corner enough isn't a brat anymore, they have Asperger's. Johnny isn't a brat because he's from a broken home, with a crack addict mom, and dad in prison. His behavioral issues are because he has Asperger's. Guess what? When you point the finger at the wrong problem, you can't get the right answer.
The adults who act rude to everyone and then claim they have it are worse. Have you been to a doctor for that diagnosis? No. You are just an asshole. Being an asshole doesn't mean you have a mental disorder. And news flash: I know people who actually have it who aren't half that rude. Maybe your parents didn't spank you enough, maybe too much. But even if you do have it, you can learn to adapt. I know people who have done it. Asperger's is a crippling shyness, not an excuse to attack everyone around you and hold up your deluded self-diagnosis like a shield. And it isn't an excuse to be an asshole.
So, there you have it. One person's opinion on that. Again, don't shoot the messenger.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
NSA and other violations
I know many of you have been waiting to see my take on the NSA spying on Americans. There is only one take, and that is it cannot, in any way, be accepted. Right now it looks like at least the senate also knew about this, and not one of them, even the ones voting against, broke ranks to tell the people that their government was spying on them. That means they all have to go. Every last senator needs to be voted out.
It got me thinking though, what other rights are being trampled by our government. Let's look at the Bill of Rights. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) The preamble to the Bill of Rights states that it exists as a limit to government power, to prevent abuses. So let's see if government has been exceeding those limits, and we have been allowing abuses.
1. Google has been ordered to not report on what the NSA has been requesting from them, or about whom. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/06/18/google-nsa-fisa-petition/2435499/) Clear violation of the first amendment.
2. Anyone who has been awake the last 6 months knows they have been trying to violate the hell out of this. Also, since the limits on the federal government apply to the states, as per amendment 10, any state laws prohibiting access to firearms is a violation of this amendment, by extension.
3. Not quartering soldiers in homes yet, so OK here.
4. Unreasonable searches and seizures. Since random, or even 100 percent "traffic safety check points" have been ruled as unreasonable; why is this current NSA nonsense tolerated. This is violated so bad the NSA should be brought up on sexual assault charges.
5. Addresses due process. Funny thing, the NSA has been recording everything, then getting a warrant if it finds something. That is the opposite of due process. Like having the police search your home, then if they find something, getting a warrant. This also states that property may not be taken without just compensation. What is the value of intellectual property? Ever e-mail a story idea?
6. Speedy trial by jury of peers. So far this is mostly in tact.
7. Right to trail for civil suits. Ok.
8. Excessive fines, bail, cruel and unusual punishment not allowed. I'll give them this, only because that would be another whole post.
9. The presence of these rights being named, does not imply they are the only ones. Such as privacy, which I would say is also covered by the language in the 4th amendment. Violated here as well.
10. Powers not listed here, and NOT DENIED here, are for the states and the people. SO states can clearly not regulate the 2nd amendment either. Clearly violated.
So how did we score? 4 rights left intact. ONLY 4. U.S.A. you have failed a test that you wrote, and you know the answers to. Other countries are rioting over far less. We have a means of evicting bad government without violence. We can vote the rats out of the house. Unless they take that from us next. We have given lawyers their chance; instead of electing them, maybe we should start electing working stiffs. They certainly could not do a worse job.
NOTE TO THE NSA: Every one of you know what you are doing is wrong, even if, especially if, it is ordered by the President, and the whole of congress. We should not have to ask you to stop.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
How to be angry: A basic primer.
As any regular reader, anyone who knows me, indeed anyone who has ever met me knows, I am an expert on being angry. I am well read on the topic, (One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged. -Heinrich Heine-), and I am observant enough to be an expert based purely on experience. So I will present to the rest of you a simple review of how to be angry.
I have often told my children not to look for things to be mad about; the world will give you plenty of reasons. That is more true than anything I have ever written. But simply being angry is doing nothing more than shortening your life, and diminishing the quality thereof. You must act on it. First though, you must know who to direct the anger toward.
Let's say you are angry that you don't get enough respect, or make enough money, at work. I'm guessing that is most of you. Take that anger, frustration, and bile, direct it at the person responsible; yourself, and go sign up for school. Or go put in resumes at other companies. Most of you reading this live in America, which means although it might be hard, nothing is stopping you from bettering yourself. If you fail, you failed while trying.
(It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
Now let's say you are angry at the government, for any of a thousand legitimate reasons. Did you vote? Judging by the turnout numbers, no. But if you did, was your candidate elected? No? Did you actively campaign for that person? I'm not saying it's your fault they didn't win, just that the other side tried harder and you did not. So direct that energy again toward the person responsible for your situation, which again is you, and next time try harder to campaign for your person. (A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
By now, since you are clever enough to have read this far, you have noticed a pattern. Only you are responsible for your situation. I would also point out that one thing to not do, is just complain to strangers on the internet. Hypocritical? Not in my case. I also make it a point to write, call, harass, pester, and badger my elected officials to do things the way I want. I am currently in school again. I try to guide others to do what they know is right. (notice I did not say "gently guide", I don't do gentle.)
I leave you with a parting thought. I am trying to make you mad at me, for telling you to blame yourself. Take that anger, and hate me. It's not like I care. But use it as a source of inspiration to better your situation. (It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. -Samuel Adams-) And when you do act, remember you have been trolled into doing it. (Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance. -Heinrich Heine-)
I have often told my children not to look for things to be mad about; the world will give you plenty of reasons. That is more true than anything I have ever written. But simply being angry is doing nothing more than shortening your life, and diminishing the quality thereof. You must act on it. First though, you must know who to direct the anger toward.
Let's say you are angry that you don't get enough respect, or make enough money, at work. I'm guessing that is most of you. Take that anger, frustration, and bile, direct it at the person responsible; yourself, and go sign up for school. Or go put in resumes at other companies. Most of you reading this live in America, which means although it might be hard, nothing is stopping you from bettering yourself. If you fail, you failed while trying.
(It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
Now let's say you are angry at the government, for any of a thousand legitimate reasons. Did you vote? Judging by the turnout numbers, no. But if you did, was your candidate elected? No? Did you actively campaign for that person? I'm not saying it's your fault they didn't win, just that the other side tried harder and you did not. So direct that energy again toward the person responsible for your situation, which again is you, and next time try harder to campaign for your person. (A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
By now, since you are clever enough to have read this far, you have noticed a pattern. Only you are responsible for your situation. I would also point out that one thing to not do, is just complain to strangers on the internet. Hypocritical? Not in my case. I also make it a point to write, call, harass, pester, and badger my elected officials to do things the way I want. I am currently in school again. I try to guide others to do what they know is right. (notice I did not say "gently guide", I don't do gentle.)
I leave you with a parting thought. I am trying to make you mad at me, for telling you to blame yourself. Take that anger, and hate me. It's not like I care. But use it as a source of inspiration to better your situation. (It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. -Samuel Adams-) And when you do act, remember you have been trolled into doing it. (Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance. -Heinrich Heine-)
Thursday, May 23, 2013
A mile in you shoes...
This is my first post in a while. I am currently between semesters. I will start with a lighter topic, while I acclimate to the real world.
Lately I have seen more than a few posts on social media about not judging someone until you have struggled to walk in their shoes. Some even stating that someone else could not have made it as far. Sorry. I'm calling B.S.
First off, there is no way to measure this, so it is inherently false. Second, to assume that someone else, in a similar situation could not possibly get as far as you, by whatever standard of success you chose to employ, is based wholly on arrogance. The superiority complex driving this assumes that, not only is no one better than you, but that you gave your best effort, all the time. We both know that isn't true.
You know who could have gotten further than me in less time? Damn near anyone. I did not have a perfect upbringing, but I had many advantages that are denied to most. My parents were together, they did their best to put some morality in me (for all the good it did...), I had some supervision and discipline, I had access to computers early on, etc.
My biggest obstacle was myself. I was observant enough to see the "good-old-boy" network in its glory, in the dung-heap of a city called Chicago. I had no confidence in myself, despite tests scores telling me I should. All I saw was that, being not born to privilege, I would be denied success. Any success stories of others from working class families, I wrote off as statistical outliers. (Which they are, but that is for another time) A little cognitive dissonance would have served me well.
So I will not say that someone else could not have done better. Hell, most people probably could have. But to say that no one can judge you until they have been you, assumes they never had it worse. If you posted that on a social media site, most of the world has it worse than you. And by the way, they have bigger problems than Starbuck's being out of their favorite flavoring.
Lately I have seen more than a few posts on social media about not judging someone until you have struggled to walk in their shoes. Some even stating that someone else could not have made it as far. Sorry. I'm calling B.S.
First off, there is no way to measure this, so it is inherently false. Second, to assume that someone else, in a similar situation could not possibly get as far as you, by whatever standard of success you chose to employ, is based wholly on arrogance. The superiority complex driving this assumes that, not only is no one better than you, but that you gave your best effort, all the time. We both know that isn't true.
You know who could have gotten further than me in less time? Damn near anyone. I did not have a perfect upbringing, but I had many advantages that are denied to most. My parents were together, they did their best to put some morality in me (for all the good it did...), I had some supervision and discipline, I had access to computers early on, etc.
My biggest obstacle was myself. I was observant enough to see the "good-old-boy" network in its glory, in the dung-heap of a city called Chicago. I had no confidence in myself, despite tests scores telling me I should. All I saw was that, being not born to privilege, I would be denied success. Any success stories of others from working class families, I wrote off as statistical outliers. (Which they are, but that is for another time) A little cognitive dissonance would have served me well.
So I will not say that someone else could not have done better. Hell, most people probably could have. But to say that no one can judge you until they have been you, assumes they never had it worse. If you posted that on a social media site, most of the world has it worse than you. And by the way, they have bigger problems than Starbuck's being out of their favorite flavoring.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The United Home-Owners Association of America
Everyone online seems to be using readily understood ideas to represent more complex ones. These are rarely appropriate, and always a gross over-simplification. But hey, I'll hop right on that bandwagon. I have a concept that is actually accurate however. One that will explain why the two-party system is broken beyond repair.
Imagine the entire country as a subdivision. A tidy little 50 home neighborhood. Each household has an average of 2 people. Most have only 1, but some have many more. Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association. Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole. That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent. That was the vision of the founding fathers.
What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs. Let's call them Dueces and Royals. (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense). Neither side represents the interest of any household. Neither side is making the neighborhood any better. The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas. The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories. Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging. (claiming to represent your interests)
The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim. Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying. Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party. They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics. They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate. You are either with us, or against us. They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors. The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over. This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.) You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse. The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.
Imagine the entire country as a subdivision. A tidy little 50 home neighborhood. Each household has an average of 2 people. Most have only 1, but some have many more. Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association. Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole. That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent. That was the vision of the founding fathers.
What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs. Let's call them Dueces and Royals. (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense). Neither side represents the interest of any household. Neither side is making the neighborhood any better. The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas. The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories. Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging. (claiming to represent your interests)
The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim. Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying. Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party. They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics. They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate. You are either with us, or against us. They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors. The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over. This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.) You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse. The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The accumulated wisdom of humanity.
You may have noticed that these posts have been less frequent. I have been busier, lately. I have been trying to write a book. (Fiction) In just over one month I will be re-entering my MBA program, and so will have even less time to devote to this project, at least temporarily. The posts will likely begin to reflect what I am studying, rather than politics or food. But I am going to prepare all of you for this lack of my divine presence, by giving you this guide to the accumulated wisdom of humanity. Don't be afraid to read it, there really isn't as much as you'd think.
On politics, Lincoln:
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
“The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for.”
“They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience.”
On politics, Lincoln:
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
On knowledge, Einstein (attributed):
On personal issues, Bob Marley:
On doing what is right, Gandhi:
On getting along, Christ:
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
On government, Jefferson (paraphrasing Locke):
And one final general quote from Theodore Roosevelt:
That's about it. I wish there was more, but that about covers it.
I would only add one from the poet philosopher David Mathews,
"If you beat that (expletive) into a coma, when he wakes up in the hospital, he won't be any smarter."
I would only add one from the poet philosopher David Mathews,
"If you beat that (expletive) into a coma, when he wakes up in the hospital, he won't be any smarter."
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The agenda of the useless.
“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.”
Charles R. Swindoll
Charles R. Swindoll
We have all seen this quote, and I have always disagreed. Partly because it is my nature to be disagreeable, partly because nothing so sunny could possibly be true. Mostly it is because it is the biggest, fluffiest ball of crap ever committed to paper.
I say this because having an optimistic outlook doesn't actually change a damned thing. It may help you feel better, assuming you have a high degree of cognitive dissonance, but it changes nothing. Someone born to poor parents will not become rich by having a sunny disposition. Someone who's car was stolen does not recover it by optimism.
All that is accomplished by spreading this manure is empowering useless people to feel vital. We all work, or attend school, with someone who is completely worthless, but feel like they contribute simply by having a positive attitude. My attitude is awful. But if someone wants a something done, done right, and done fast, they come to me.
In fact my attitude is best when those with a positive attitude are nowhere in sight. When I'm surrounded by other grumpy people, all of us see an increase in productivity. I am not talking only about my current position, but every job, and every school I've ever attended.
That is not to say everyone with a positive attitude is worthless. I know quite a few people who are tops in their field, and unabashedly positive. But even if they were the rule rather than the exception, to say that attitude matters more than fact is asinine.
I am also not saying that negative people are all productive. Many are quite the opposite. And a negative unproductive person is worse for morale than a positive unproductive person. In theory anyway. The negative unproductive person will never get an undeserved promotion because of their sunny disposition.
Positive people get promoted more often, but look around your company, do they do a better job? The people who take an honest look at the situation, and make the best of it, are a different class of people than those who only see the good. It's well past time we acknowledge the difference.
A violation of civil rights.
The constitution, as it was originally worded, left allowances for slaves, chattel, and indentured servants. Not too long after this was corrected, but not before many lives were made worse, by being treated as second class citizens. Slavery was abolished but wrong-headed practices endured. People were denied rights based on their ethnicity, country of origin, and sometimes even religion.
Much later many brave souls stood up and declared that they would no longer tolerate this. Such treatment was a violation of their civil rights. They complained that whole classes, races, ethnicites, and even religions were being pre-judged as dangerous, or criminal, based on the actions of a few, with whom they were in no way connected. Their civil rights were being violated.
Apply this logic to what we see today. The rights of an entire group of people, representing just about half of all Americans, depending who's chart you believe, are being told that rights guaranteed to them by our constitution, will be curtailed, or for lack of a better word, infringed upon. This group is nearly equally represented by men and women, Democrat and Republican, young and old.
Based on the actions of a infinitesimally small amount of people, and to combat a problem that represents 0.16% the number of drunk driving fatalities, some in Washington are seeking to ban a popular type of repeating rifle. (FBI crime statistics. 18 fatalities from so called "Assault weapons", 10,839 drunk driving fatalities.)
That's right. The patent office recognizes semi-automatic firearms as a type of repeating firearm. This means one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. Semi-automatic is a bit of a misnomer, because it in no way can match the function of a fully automatic weapon. The other thing to consider here is that to ban any type of firearm is a violation of every single American's civil rights. The same as if they decided on a state religion, or to preemptively arrest all persons of African and Hispanic ancestry, because of statistical findings. If reading that infuriates you, good. Because it is no different.
The numbers show we don't actually have any type of problem with those rifles. Crime statistics show that there is absolutely no reason to act against any particular type of gun, but least of all what they are incorrectly terming "assault weapons". Of all firearms used in the commission of homicides, let alone general crimes, those are used least, and by a huge margin. The numbers are 92.73% of homicides committed with handguns, 6.99% with rifles, and 0.27% with what they call an "assault weapon".
Stop solving a problem we don't have, and solve the ones we do. You may have noticed that as a country, we are nearing insolvency. Taking action against the law-abiding gun-owners is a violation of their civil rights. The question here is why is the ACLU not involved? Why are they not being called out for their hypocrisy in this? Why are we allowing Washington to waste money we don't have, to solve a problem we don't have, and distract us from the real issues?
Much later many brave souls stood up and declared that they would no longer tolerate this. Such treatment was a violation of their civil rights. They complained that whole classes, races, ethnicites, and even religions were being pre-judged as dangerous, or criminal, based on the actions of a few, with whom they were in no way connected. Their civil rights were being violated.
Apply this logic to what we see today. The rights of an entire group of people, representing just about half of all Americans, depending who's chart you believe, are being told that rights guaranteed to them by our constitution, will be curtailed, or for lack of a better word, infringed upon. This group is nearly equally represented by men and women, Democrat and Republican, young and old.
Based on the actions of a infinitesimally small amount of people, and to combat a problem that represents 0.16% the number of drunk driving fatalities, some in Washington are seeking to ban a popular type of repeating rifle. (FBI crime statistics. 18 fatalities from so called "Assault weapons", 10,839 drunk driving fatalities.)
That's right. The patent office recognizes semi-automatic firearms as a type of repeating firearm. This means one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. Semi-automatic is a bit of a misnomer, because it in no way can match the function of a fully automatic weapon. The other thing to consider here is that to ban any type of firearm is a violation of every single American's civil rights. The same as if they decided on a state religion, or to preemptively arrest all persons of African and Hispanic ancestry, because of statistical findings. If reading that infuriates you, good. Because it is no different.
The numbers show we don't actually have any type of problem with those rifles. Crime statistics show that there is absolutely no reason to act against any particular type of gun, but least of all what they are incorrectly terming "assault weapons". Of all firearms used in the commission of homicides, let alone general crimes, those are used least, and by a huge margin. The numbers are 92.73% of homicides committed with handguns, 6.99% with rifles, and 0.27% with what they call an "assault weapon".
Stop solving a problem we don't have, and solve the ones we do. You may have noticed that as a country, we are nearing insolvency. Taking action against the law-abiding gun-owners is a violation of their civil rights. The question here is why is the ACLU not involved? Why are they not being called out for their hypocrisy in this? Why are we allowing Washington to waste money we don't have, to solve a problem we don't have, and distract us from the real issues?
Friday, January 11, 2013
The President's agenda has changed. Or has it?
You can say a lot of things about Barack Obama. One thing you cannot say, (at least accurately) is that he is stupid. While I disagree with a lot of what he has attempted to do; he has been the most politically savvy President in a long time. I have previously, jokingly suggested that his agenda for 2013 was to sell guns. I think now I have figured out what he is really doing, and I want everyone to hear it from me first.
He assigned the biggest fool on the left side of the aisle, Joe Biden, to head up a commission (which I'm sure was a four-star, blue ribbon panel, since they all are) to look into possible gun-control solutions. This is significant given Biden's role in the Brady bill, and his political nearness to extremists like Feinstein.
Examine what a farce this panel has been already. Meeting with the makers of video games, movies and television shows to discuss whether there should be gun-control measures. Someone said this is like asking the makers of Hot Wheels their opinions on automobile safety. I concur. Considering how badly Hollywood and the gaming industry botch firearms in general, it is moronic to ask for their input.
Unless your idea is to shake up your political opponents. Here comes the NRA, the 2nd amendment foundation, and the whole of the Republican party, riding in on their white chargers. They are yelling that guns are not the problem. Mental health care and schools are the problem.
The President, while taking V.P. Biden's suggestions "under advisement", meets with the NRA and the Republican leaders. He ponders for a while, then declares that he thinks they are right. Education and health care are what need to be fixed, not the private business of law-abiding citizens. He then invites the Republicans, and those in the Democrats who previously voted against reforming health care, to join him in this noble cause. To correct the issues that were his primary platform to correct.
He will have forced the Republicans, and the Democrats who didn't vote for those reforms the first time, to gladly join him in reforming these things now. In doing so he will have built a bridge between both parties. Brilliant, when you think about it.
He assigned the biggest fool on the left side of the aisle, Joe Biden, to head up a commission (which I'm sure was a four-star, blue ribbon panel, since they all are) to look into possible gun-control solutions. This is significant given Biden's role in the Brady bill, and his political nearness to extremists like Feinstein.
Examine what a farce this panel has been already. Meeting with the makers of video games, movies and television shows to discuss whether there should be gun-control measures. Someone said this is like asking the makers of Hot Wheels their opinions on automobile safety. I concur. Considering how badly Hollywood and the gaming industry botch firearms in general, it is moronic to ask for their input.
Unless your idea is to shake up your political opponents. Here comes the NRA, the 2nd amendment foundation, and the whole of the Republican party, riding in on their white chargers. They are yelling that guns are not the problem. Mental health care and schools are the problem.
The President, while taking V.P. Biden's suggestions "under advisement", meets with the NRA and the Republican leaders. He ponders for a while, then declares that he thinks they are right. Education and health care are what need to be fixed, not the private business of law-abiding citizens. He then invites the Republicans, and those in the Democrats who previously voted against reforming health care, to join him in this noble cause. To correct the issues that were his primary platform to correct.
He will have forced the Republicans, and the Democrats who didn't vote for those reforms the first time, to gladly join him in reforming these things now. In doing so he will have built a bridge between both parties. Brilliant, when you think about it.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?
I had heard this questioned being seriously punted around in the media, so I will present a multiple choice test here, with this as the only question.
1) Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) What does his weight have to do with anything?
d) What kind of person would even think to ask that?
e) Is that really what our political process has devolved into?
f) He's too fat to run for anything.
How did you do? Lets see by examining the possible answers.
a) If this was your answer you are an unthinking moron who's voting rights should be removed. I hope you die in a fire, while sitting in a filthy bathroom stall, with the most painful food poising you have ever experienced, causing explosive diarrhea.
b) You might not be as big of an idiot as the person who answered a), but probably should have read further.
c) Partial credit for having some sense.
d) Partial credit for appropriate moral outrage.
e) Full credit. being disappointed with the whole process is the only intelligent response to such an asinine question.
f) Partial credit for having a sense of humor about such a farcical process as our Presidential races.
1) Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) What does his weight have to do with anything?
d) What kind of person would even think to ask that?
e) Is that really what our political process has devolved into?
f) He's too fat to run for anything.
How did you do? Lets see by examining the possible answers.
a) If this was your answer you are an unthinking moron who's voting rights should be removed. I hope you die in a fire, while sitting in a filthy bathroom stall, with the most painful food poising you have ever experienced, causing explosive diarrhea.
b) You might not be as big of an idiot as the person who answered a), but probably should have read further.
c) Partial credit for having some sense.
d) Partial credit for appropriate moral outrage.
e) Full credit. being disappointed with the whole process is the only intelligent response to such an asinine question.
f) Partial credit for having a sense of humor about such a farcical process as our Presidential races.
Starting the year with an economic boost.
Just before the end of 2012, the President gave a speech that praised republicans for ceding ground in the negotiations prior to the dreaded "fiscal cliff". The same speech "damned by faint praise" his own party, and made mention of the need of both, to work harder to compromise. He also stated that , personally, he would have liked to address all of the issues in one broad sweeping agreement, but that this congress was not up to that task.
Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed. The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems. (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want) What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures. The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy. (which is exactly what has happened.) The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms. These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
Small business owners profit. Distributors profit. American Manufacturing profits. The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented. A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs. (for the second time, in many cases)
Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban. This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession. But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.
Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed. The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems. (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want) What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures. The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy. (which is exactly what has happened.) The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms. These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
Small business owners profit. Distributors profit. American Manufacturing profits. The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented. A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs. (for the second time, in many cases)
Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban. This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession. But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
They all need to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
So here we are day one, 2013. Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff". Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season. This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this. Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision. In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort. He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to. The message was there though, neither side is doing their job. Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
So here we are on the First day of 2013. The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect. Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much. A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses. They all need to go. None of them have done their jobs. So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out. Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer. We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely. Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.
I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban". I might still write one. For now though lets go back to 1994. Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing. The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was. No mechanical parts changed. The rifle functioned the same either way.
Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right. Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
You are doing it to yourselves.
Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.
So here we are day one, 2013. Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff". Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season. This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this. Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision. In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort. He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to. The message was there though, neither side is doing their job. Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
So here we are on the First day of 2013. The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect. Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much. A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses. They all need to go. None of them have done their jobs. So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out. Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer. We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely. Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.
I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban". I might still write one. For now though lets go back to 1994. Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing. The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was. No mechanical parts changed. The rifle functioned the same either way.
Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right. Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
You are doing it to yourselves.
Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)