Donald, Ben, and Bernie. Why are Americans so drawn to them.

       You may have missed the report today that 3 out of every 4 Americans are unhappy with the way we are being governed.  69% being at least somewhat angry.  Now aside from the fact that between 40 and 60 percent of Americans can't be bothered to vote, or perhaps in addition to this, it shows we are not happy with our government.  So why are Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders so popular?

       When you don't trust government, you seek the outsiders.  All three fit this, more or less.  When you feel you aren't getting what you're entitled to, you seek out the extremists.  All three, again, fit this, more or less.  Sanders wants to create his version of a socialist utopia.  Trump wants to "Make America great again" by creating a capitalist utopia.  Carson apparently favors theocracy.

       The only reason Sanders isn't leading on the left is the flagrant sabotage of his campaign by the DNC.  This, one could assume, has something to do with the terribly, massively corrupt, foreign donation seeking, economic powerhouse, that is the Clinton foundation.  Sanders has words, Clinton has cash.  As the old saying goes: "Money talks, B@!!$#!T walks".

       But the undeniable message that Washington should be hearing is that, on both sides, we're fed up, and don't trust them.  It's not even tinfoil hat territory any longer; to claim there is only one party, the rich, and that the whole two party system is a farce.  Tell me if this plot line sounds anything like the current system.  (http://theinfosphere.org/Tastycrats).  Americans of every political stripe are fed up with our "leaders" only representing their own interests, and the interests of big business.

       Do I have a plan to fix this?  No.  I do have a plan to fix the system that encourages it, though.  First, abolish the electoral college.  We have the ability to quickly and accurately tabulate every person's vote and we have for most of a century.  It's well past time.  Next, make all primaries on the same day.  Then no one state's votes count more than any others.  One person, one vote, is violated by the current process.  These two steps address this.

       Also, a two term limit for each office.  You can still be in politics a very long time, but a senator for only twelve years, a representative for four, and president for eight (technically ten, under the right conditions).  After that, or before, you would work at the state level.  Lastly, set the pay of each senator and representative equal to the median income of their district. (state for senators)  Gerrymandering would all but disappear, and they would be motivated to actually represent the best interests of their constituency.  The current system provides no incentive for elected officials to actually represent the interests of the governed.  These two measures address this.

       There may be a better way to accomplish this.  I would hope so.  I'm only one person with some half-baked ideas.  But 75% of us are upset with how we are being governed, by people we elect.  Something is terribly wrong here.

The Facebook cloistering effect

       I have a few select friends on facebook that, to the outside observer, I shouldn't.  Myself being a staunch libertarian, (A real one, not a tea-party version), also a Lutheran, and all around conservative.  I am not one who typically shares my faith, but I am making a point.  I have friends that run the gamut from just like me, to atheists, uber-conservatives, socialists, and every possible admixture of these.  Unlike most people I don't find this to be a problem.

       See, most people have used the power of being connected to anyone on earth, to actually narrow their exposure to new ideas.  They winnow down their friends list based on who agrees with the thoughtless political talking-points they spew.  In the end they have only like-minded friends.  This is nonsense.  I add or remove people based on the amount of thought behind what they are saying.  And believe me, it is readily apparent.

       How did we get to this point?

       Before computers united the world, you had talk to people you knew, or had met.  Friends of friends, guys at the bar, the local society of Odd-fellows, the Moose lodge, the people at the union hall.  That is, people who couldn't be ignored with a single click.  Sadly this is what most have reduced themselves to.  They cloister themselves in the monastery of online thought policing.  The end result being a group of friends that share nothing really in common, other than political opinions.

       As for me; why do I maintain a group of friends I disagree with constantly?  First, it keeps us all sharper.  Second, if I am right, arguing against a well-though-out opposing viewpoint will only strengthen my own arguments.  Third, I actually enjoy debating the finer points of political thinking, and so do they.  (Which puts us all one-up on the politicians).  Fourth, and this is a long-shot; there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that I am wrong.  If that should ever occur, I would want to know.

       So folks, it may not seem like it; but that irritating

How to prevent multiple murders. The Elliot Rodger Story.

       If you didn't know already, Elliot Rodger was a troubled young man in California.  His father was an assistant director of the Hunger Games.  He killed 6 people on the 23rd of May, as part of a revenge plot.  (source).  Apparently he felt that not getting laid in college was the fault of the women who didn't sleep with him.

       This story is much worse than it sounds, however.  The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family.  The most recent on April 30th.  Each time they completely failed to do what was needed.  The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.

       So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities.  The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to.  (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.).  These authorities did what they always do.  Nothing until someone dies.

       So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it.  So where he got the guns is no mystery.  No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market.  (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.)  This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say.  (Source).  Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.

       Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman.  So on that note I will do the same.  Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".  Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".  (Hitchens' Razor).

       Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms.  Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this.  To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical.  I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.

       This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed.  They failed each victim.  They failed their families.  They failed us.  Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda.  Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help.  As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem.  More laws wont fix laziness.



      

Why I shoot.

       Recently a friend on Facebook decided to organize an outing to the range.  A group of people expressed interest that could be accurately called: "diverse".  In a hobby that was, in the past, dominated by old men, I was seeing a change.  Nothing unusual to me.  I grew up with my mother embarrassing the men at both the archery, and trap range.

       Having just been to the range  myself I can say this is no longer a hobby for old men.  About 25-35% of the shooters were female.  About 70% were under 50 years old.  This is a change welcomed by most shooters.  The more accessible the hobby is, the more accepted it becomes.

       I am not a gun nut.  I have a modest collection that is almost entirely comprised of gifts from the enthusiasts that I find myself related to.  I do enjoy shooting though.  Any means of conveying a projectile from where I stand to a point far away with the best accuracy I can muster is a relaxing way to spend time.

       I say any means because I started with a bow.  I am not the kind of person who works at things.  I know that about myself.  If I'm not reasonably good at it the first time around, I typically abandon the hobby.  Archery was different.  I needed to be good at it.  I practiced at least three days a week for years, just to be good enough to suck.

       I eventually became better than the league shooters at the local range who used comically long stabilizers, mechanical releases, and levels.  They would hold each draw for almost a minute before releasing.  I used a finger tab, hunting stabilizer (short), and I drew back and fired in almost one motion.  I was their equal on my bad days.

       When it came time to try pistols I was a fair shot my first time out.  Rifles, the same story.  I assume that the practice in archery taught me the basics of form, consistency, breathing, and most importantly, how to quiet the mind.

       There are countless movie quotes, and idiot celebrities that will tell you how firing a weapon is a "rush" because it gives you the power of life and death.  This is pure idiocy.  Make no mistake, one person shooting another is frequently fatal.  But a "rush" from shooting is counter productive.  Adrenaline makes you shake.  A small twitch at your end of the gun makes for a large miss at 100 yards.  The guy who yells after a good shot is laughed off the line, or told to calm down.

       So why do I shoot?  I shoot because for a second, just a second, there are no problems.  There are no concerns.  There are no other people.  There is nothing but you and the target and the beam of concentration between.  The entire world has been distilled into a perfect, clear, focus. The timing of the breath comes natural at this point.  The form is held, but completely forgotten.

       There is a reason the Zen masters chose archery as a means of achieving focus, rather than say, sweeping.  Either one would work, but the focus to send a projectile to it's mark makes this transition to pure "empty-mindedness" much easier.  The calmness achieved persists long after the guns are cleaned, oiled, and put back into their cases.  This too is part of the ritual.  This too can quiet the mind.

       In today's fast-paced, distraction-filled, mind-scattering world, it is no wonder that a more diverse group of people are taking up the hobby.  Word has gotten out.  We all need a break from the chaos.  Shooting meets that need.

       It also doesn't hurt that shooters have long considered themselves a persecuted out-group; and as such, are the most welcoming, friendly bunch of people you are ever likely to meet.  They are almost as free with lending tools and helping out, as they are with advice.  (Almost).  They make new shooters feel welcome.  In fact my first trip to the rifle range in Eagle WI. someone asked what I was shooting, only so they could give me a key ring made with the correct caliber round attached to it.

       So to the new people at the range: "Welcome.  Good to see a new face.  I hope you enjoy this hobby as much as I do."

The invisible tax and you.

       In discussing school fees today I became agitated.  Both sides, in this two party system, have managed to sneak in "Invisible" taxes.  What I mean is the tax that derives itself from indirect means, thus it is not immediately obvious as a tax.

       For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them.  This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll.  Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents.  Illinois does.  In fact, according to the Illinois constitution:   "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education."  (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
       So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed?  For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education.  (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked).  Let them know how you feel, while you're at it.  (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).

       Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare.  If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount.  (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
       Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay.  Try doing that to the government.  If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
       So how is this an invisible tax?  The hospital needs that money.  Guess who's bill just went up.  Joe and Jane insurance-holder.  The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest.  To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."

       In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two.  The most egregious examples I could find.  There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?)  In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed.  A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this.  "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund"  This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls.  Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no.  No, because you are paying those extra fees already.  Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.

       In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate.  Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values."  Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale.  So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from.  Like you are under the current system.

       But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart.  They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)

       

Firearms Education

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.

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.
     

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.

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.  

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?

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.

Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act.

       No doubt all of you who read this regularly (Both of you) have been waiting for my snarky, philosophmoric ramblings on the topic.  Today is your lucky day.  See, I can feel my back locking up again and since the muscle relaxer I was prescribed made me break out in hives, I am using the same one Grampa did: Rye whiskey.  (Well, some kind of whiskey).  The two effects this course of treatment have are relaxation, and an even greater degree of apathy about whether you want my opinion, or not.
       I will not go into the politics of this issue.  I don't need to.  The Supreme Court is currently deciding if the individual mandate is within the scope of powers of the Congress, to make law.  The implications of this ruling stand to change more than just the law most of you refer to as "Obamacare".  This decision could knock the legs out of many long standing federal programs.
       The indications are that the votes will be split along party lines.  There are currently five Republican-appointed justices, and four Democrat-appointed ones.  This is what makes me sad, angry, frustrated, and pitchfork-grabby.  If they are deciding a matter of constitutionality, party affiliation should not matter at all.  This is true for all decisions they face, and true regardless of their, or anyone else's party affiliation.  And yet, here we are, staring down a court that, despite being sworn to uphold the Constitution, gives no indication this is even a consideration.
       In short: the two-party system had corrupted the highest court in the land.  That is really all I can say on this without being seen as taking sides.  Although if I were to make a statement on this topic, it would be this:  A federal healthcare program is an all-or-nothing proposition.  What we have is severely "semicolon-ing" (half-a$$-ing) the idea.

Agenda for America

       I will admit it freely.  I have an agenda.  Not a unabomber-manifesto type agenda.  Or a tea-party agenda.  Certainly not a socialist agenda.  I am a centrist.  By that I mean I hold x- number of reactionary /libertarian views, and an equal number of socialist views.  So they kinda balance out.  (example, pro gun, don't care if gays marry)  In other countries, such as the Nordic Socialist- democracies, they have names for that.  Here we do not.  My agenda is simple, and detailed below:
       Keep them from f-ing it up.  By "them" I mean politicians.  You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate.  An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
       You may be asking, "Why is that good?"  I'll tell you my friends, right this way.  The eternal dance we call a representative democracy.  You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government.  They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years.  Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
       This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will.  No I have not been drinking.  Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
       Equal opportunity bashing:  The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year.  3 for 3 as I recall.  For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it.  (I know, bad grammar)  Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will.  Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
       Now for the righties.  Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech.  Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks.  Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong.  Especially if that were part of my job description.  But then I'm no congressman.  The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong.  Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass.  Just sayin'.
       To the (ahem) neutral media:  Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners.  Bachman is last in almost every poll.  Put Ron Paul on the television.  He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate.  Perhaps the only one.
       Never wanted to be this guy but here I am:  I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites.  For the record, it was narrated by a white male.  Presumably affluent.  That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism."  (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first".  I have been that guy.  Low income, Republican voter.  I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone.  Although if a candidate promised world domination...
       It all starts with assumptions.  We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right.  We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
       "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."  -Henry Ford-

Welcome to Illinois, your vote doesn't count.

       I feel compelled to do some coat tugging about a subject near and dear to me.  The fact that my vote, and the majority vote in my district, means absolutely nothing.  You see, McHenry county has always been a Republican county.  Odd in Illinois.  Especially this close to the Peoples Republic of Chicago (Thanks Gobbie).  Now the election before last, a Democrat was elected because the man filling the seat was... worthless.  (trying not to curse) He was the stereotype of a Republican and worse, didn't show up to his job.  Sadly, the woman voted in to replace him was just as bad.  So last election we found ourselves with a hotly contested race with a dark horse Republican eventually winning.  In fact they won a few seats out here.
       But this being Illinois, the majority party in the state creates the districts, and this is a redistricting year.  They made no pretense about ethnic, or socio-economic shifts.  They flagrantly Gerrymandered the districts to put the freshmen Republicans in other districts, against incumbent Republicans for the next elections.  So no matter who wins the Republicans will lose some seats.  This is Chicago machine politics at its lowest.
       I apologize to any Democrats who may chance upon this as it does not paint a pretty picture of the party.  I do not mean to identify these corrupt toadies with any persons who simply have a politically left ideology.  The Illinois machine is not a fair representation of the Democrats.  It is an analogue of the dark ages in Europe.  People kept intentionally poor, ignorant, and powerless.  Being told it is their lot in life and someone else's fault.  And being victimized by the very people purporting to help them.  But I digress...
       Back to McHenry.  The people have voted.  a narrow majority in one race, and a wide one in many others, chose to have Republicans represent them.  Their votes are being subverted by a corrupt power-brokering machine.  You need not side with the right or left to see that when this happens the people's will is not being acted on.  The people of this county do not have a say in their own affairs.  I would say we should annex to Wisconsin, (I actually have said that before), but given their current climate, I want no truck with that either.  I'm trying to remember; what did people here do the last time an oppressive government subverted their will?