I was certain, that by this point, the internet would be awash in posts on how to spot fake news. I have seen few such pieces, and those have been rather biased themselves. So here I present a basic primer on how to spot fake news. Or, for the slightly more educated: how to determine if a given news story is biased or manipulative. I will start with the highest quality, and least biased type of news, and wade my way into the sewer from there.
News that does not present a side: You have seen this type of reporting. Most likely as the police blotter in a local newspaper. It reads like a simple rundown of facts, because that is what it is. Even many weather reports do not follow this style any longer. It is boring, and doesn't drive ratings. This type of reporting shows only what happened, when, and to whom. It makes no supposition as to the "why". Stories that present only some of the facts do not fit here.
News that presents every side equally, and without bias: This is the rarest of all birds. I don't recall seeing it at all in my adult life. Many stories that seem to equally represent more than one side actually do not. If they have a quote from one side, damning the other, and no response, a quote from one side presented as a statement of fact, but offset by quotes, or a small mention of a countervailing viewpoint buried near, but not at the end of the story: they do not fall into this category.
News that flagrantly presents only one side of a story: I count this as non-manipulative because they make their intentions clear at the outset. Stories that are presented as news, but are actually opinion pieces, (Looking at you Yahoo!) do not fall into this category.
Anything above this point is not "Fake News". Anything below it is. Pay attention to which type of reporting you actually witness. I'll bet everything above seems foreign and strange. But everything below seems quite familiar. Put on your chest waders. The manure truck is unloading...
News that presents one side in a way that looks neutral: This is the second most frequently seen type of story. An agenda is bolstered either by presenting a quote from someone as a statement of truth, the testimony of an unqualified "expert" (Thunderwood College for example), or by not giving equal representation.
News that presents one side as "good" and the other "bad": This can be anything from: softening the coverage of riots led by Antifa ans BLM, showing one side as educated and the other as rubes, or presenting one side as being affiliated with an undesirable societal element.
News that over-reports sensational topics: "If it bleeds, it leads" has long been the newsroom standard. But that simple ratings -boosting mentality, fed by our love of dirty laundry, can mislead the public. The best example that exists is the public perception that we are living in a very violent period in history, both domestically and globally, When quite the opposite is true. Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, have both been trending downward for decades. But you would never know that, reading or watching the news. This is the most common type of story.
News that presents the findings of a study or survey: This includes both the stories centered on a media-conducted survey showing what a "majority" believe, and stories where the media is reporting on a correctly conducted study, that is either by ignorance or design, presented in a false way. In the first instance there are questions like: "Do you support violent felons being imprisoned?" which is presented as "The majority of Americans support tougher gun laws." (section titled: "Misleading Polls"). In the second instance this would include almost every scientific finding reported on in the last three decades. This may not be their fault.
News that is actually an opinion piece: Depending on presentation, this may, or may not be obvious.
News with a single, unreliable source: Always presented as factual, and the source is always presented as beyond reproach. But always found out, sometimes months later, to be false.
Non-News: "Trending on Twitter" stories, celebrity gossip, stories reporting the findings or reactions of; UFO "experts", Bigfoot "researchers" and any headline that ends in a question mark. If such a story were true, the headline would be a statement, not a question.
Every Blog Ever Written: Even this one.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
A new word for it...
I have had many conversations with a close friend about whether greed ruins things for everyone. He always has asserted that it has. I have stated that it does not. We argued a few times before I noticed that we weren't talking about the same thing.
I contended that greed was what made me not live in a tent. Greed is why I accumulated wealth. (well, try to, anyway) Greed is, simply put, the desire for more than the basic necessities. Greed is wanting more than you have. Wanting more is what drives humanity to ever-greater endeavors, and therefore cannot, inherently, be bad. This definition is acceptable to most.
He stated, that the greed he was talking about, is the drive to have more, at the expense of another. It is what drives a business to lay people off when they have a 10 figure reserve fund. It is what makes millionaires cheat, lie and steal to become billionaires. It is what is behind the statement: "to build shareholder value". This is also an acceptable definition, to most.
Dictionary.com says that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". While this seems to agree more with my friend's definition, much depends on how one defines excessive. What amount of wealth is enough; that wanting more means you are greedy. I imagine you all have a dollar amount in your head. Know that, for someone, somewhere, that number makes you terribly greedy.
The problem is that the two equally valid definitions, mean almost the opposite of each other. The desire for more than you have is certainly a good thing. The desire for more than you have, at the expense of another is something else entirely. The first is what illustrates that Libertarians are right. The second shows that socialists are. (The two major parties being so thoroughly corrupt as to not even serve as examples; since they both only represent consummate greed.)
Now, taken at face value, the two types of greed are really just the desire for more. One side is tempered by morality, and the other by selfishness. The selfish person will be driven to acquire more, even at someone else's expense. The moral person will work harder to improve their lot.but not by cheating others. How people define cheating others is subject to debate as well. If you fast-talk someone into a bad deal; have they been cheated?
I'm not, as anyone who is currently having conniptions from my colloquial writing style will attest, any kind of authority on language. So I will not be so forward as to suggest a new word, phrase, or acronym, for our language. But the definition of greed is too broad to use in discussion, without modifiers. Otherwise, you can't be sure what sense of the word is actually meant.
I contended that greed was what made me not live in a tent. Greed is why I accumulated wealth. (well, try to, anyway) Greed is, simply put, the desire for more than the basic necessities. Greed is wanting more than you have. Wanting more is what drives humanity to ever-greater endeavors, and therefore cannot, inherently, be bad. This definition is acceptable to most.
He stated, that the greed he was talking about, is the drive to have more, at the expense of another. It is what drives a business to lay people off when they have a 10 figure reserve fund. It is what makes millionaires cheat, lie and steal to become billionaires. It is what is behind the statement: "to build shareholder value". This is also an acceptable definition, to most.
Dictionary.com says that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". While this seems to agree more with my friend's definition, much depends on how one defines excessive. What amount of wealth is enough; that wanting more means you are greedy. I imagine you all have a dollar amount in your head. Know that, for someone, somewhere, that number makes you terribly greedy.
The problem is that the two equally valid definitions, mean almost the opposite of each other. The desire for more than you have is certainly a good thing. The desire for more than you have, at the expense of another is something else entirely. The first is what illustrates that Libertarians are right. The second shows that socialists are. (The two major parties being so thoroughly corrupt as to not even serve as examples; since they both only represent consummate greed.)
Now, taken at face value, the two types of greed are really just the desire for more. One side is tempered by morality, and the other by selfishness. The selfish person will be driven to acquire more, even at someone else's expense. The moral person will work harder to improve their lot.but not by cheating others. How people define cheating others is subject to debate as well. If you fast-talk someone into a bad deal; have they been cheated?
I'm not, as anyone who is currently having conniptions from my colloquial writing style will attest, any kind of authority on language. So I will not be so forward as to suggest a new word, phrase, or acronym, for our language. But the definition of greed is too broad to use in discussion, without modifiers. Otherwise, you can't be sure what sense of the word is actually meant.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
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
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
Sunday, April 13, 2014
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
How to argue Pro Second Amendment
There was something of a stir the other day on the reddits about the argument that "criminals don't obey laws" not being a valid point in the gun control debate. User Frostiken raised the point and I was blown away.
First, it was stated, quite correctly, that the above line of reasoning is an argument against having any laws, not any particular one. While I know people so Libertarian/Anarchist, that they would argue in favor of that point, (not having laws) I am not one of them. OK, so now you have my attention, please continue. (http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1wrfcy/found_in_my_local_paper/cf605d6?context=3)
The example given was for drunk driving. This roughly equates to murder, for our argument. See, it is not illegal to drink. Nor is it illegal to drive. It is not illegal to own a car and drink, or to own booze and drive. It is only illegal to both be drunk, and be driving, simultaneously. This does not inconvenience the law-abiding, but it does allow for the punishment of criminals.
Compare this to the laws about owning firearms and you quickly see that A: murder is already quite illegal, and B: the laws are not put in place to punish criminals, only to hinder the law-abiding. The presumption, much unlike alcohol, is that merely owning a gun makes you a danger to your fellow man. I won't bore you with the details of firearm deaths vs. driving deaths, you can google that. (or click here, that's cool too. http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths)
All of the gun laws we have are a direct punishment on people who have done nothing wrong. (Paraprhasing u/Frostiken) And bearing in mind that this is for something that is supposed to be a right, unlike driving which is a privilege. Frostiken then listed several analogs of gun laws, expressed as regulating alcohol. I have copypasta-d below in it's entirety.
Banning every alcoholic drink over 35 proof (Hughes amendment)
Banning any alcohol bottle or can that holds more than 360ml (Magazine limits)
Banning mixed drinks that contain more than two alcoholic ingredients (Assault Weapon Ban)
Require a 30 minute 'waiting period' between all purchases of shots (Handgun waiting periods)
In several states including California you'd have to buy a special 'liquor license' that requires you to undergo mandatory training and pay annual fees to the state to be allowed to drink (Licensing)
All bottles and cans in California have a little plastic device inside that blocks the neck or the mouth when you pour it, so you can only drink a little bit at a time (Bullet buttons)
Buying a hip flask would require getting permission from the ATF and a background check and another tax (NFA)
Any alcoholic container with a 'wide mouth' is banned and requires going through the ATF as well (Caliber limits / Destructive devices).
Drinking alcohol near a school is a felony (Gun Free School Zone Act)
Drinking near a road is a felony, drinking pretty much anywhere except your house or a place with a license to serve alcohol is pretty much a felony (Various laws regarding where a firearm can be discharged)
Successfully fight the '7-11 loophole' where 'anyone can buy alcohol face-to-face without showing their ID!' by mandating that you go down to the nearest liquor store before you hand your friend a beer, so that the clerk can verify that he's 21 (Banning private sales)
Vast majority of alcohol made overseas is completely banned because it has 'no recreational purpose' (922(r))
Any alcohol that is imported must have a certain number of ingredients that are sourced from the US. If you make a mixed drink with these with another ingredient that isn't from the US, you're committing a felony (922(r))
If it seems this is a bit ridiculous, it is. It is completely, absolutely ridiculous. Not the example above; the fact that we are allowing the chipping-away of a sacrosanct right, guaranteed not granted, by our constitution. The rights listed there are inherent to being a free people, and therefore can neither be granted, nor removed. We need to remember that.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Despotism and you
By now you have either watched, heard, heard clips of, or analysis of, or read the transcript of , the President's State of the Union address. I will not address here the finer points of it. Nor will I list the parts I disagree, or agree with. I am using this space to point out something that should scare the hell out of you.
The President of the United States of America is charged with, and sworn to, upholding our laws. The backbone of our republic, is that our elected officials will voice our wishes, and vote them into law, in congress. For good or ill, congress is the vox populi. So it is important to understand that the voice of congress, is the voice of the people. Maybe not each individual's voice, but as a people.
"America does not stand still, and neither will I, so wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
-President Obama-
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address-full-text/)
At the outset this sounds good. Sounds like a man fed up with congressional inaction, and honestly, who isn't? But who is he to say what will or will not expand opportunity? Also, when a President uses an executive order, it is typically for something like: pardoning someone, protecting a marsh, or getting something done in an emergency, not setting policy.
Now I have seen it quoted that this President has used fewer executive orders than any in recent history. I don't doubt that. But when he says he intends to bypass the due process of law, on things that require it, such as economic policy, we are going down the wrong path as a country if we do not challenge him on that.
So when our President says that this will be a year of action, with or without congresses' consent; when he says that he will use executive orders, and any other means at his disposal to get things done, even if congress does not cooperate; when he makes it clear that he knows better than the people of this country what is best for the people of this country; what separates him from a despot?
Hopefully this was just the grandstanding of a lame duck, wanting to make things better. Hopefully these were the words of a frustrated man who realizes he doesn't have the time left in office to do the things he wanted to do. Hopefully he was merely angry at not just the Republicans who have not cooperated, but also his own party which failed to support him on many issues. But that is really my point. When your own party does not get behind you, you need to consider that you may be wrong.
When the President attempts to enact policy, without congressional approval, should that carry the full weight of law? That is not an executive order. That is a Royal Decree.
The President of the United States of America is charged with, and sworn to, upholding our laws. The backbone of our republic, is that our elected officials will voice our wishes, and vote them into law, in congress. For good or ill, congress is the vox populi. So it is important to understand that the voice of congress, is the voice of the people. Maybe not each individual's voice, but as a people.
"America does not stand still, and neither will I, so wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
-President Obama-
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address-full-text/)
At the outset this sounds good. Sounds like a man fed up with congressional inaction, and honestly, who isn't? But who is he to say what will or will not expand opportunity? Also, when a President uses an executive order, it is typically for something like: pardoning someone, protecting a marsh, or getting something done in an emergency, not setting policy.
Now I have seen it quoted that this President has used fewer executive orders than any in recent history. I don't doubt that. But when he says he intends to bypass the due process of law, on things that require it, such as economic policy, we are going down the wrong path as a country if we do not challenge him on that.
So when our President says that this will be a year of action, with or without congresses' consent; when he says that he will use executive orders, and any other means at his disposal to get things done, even if congress does not cooperate; when he makes it clear that he knows better than the people of this country what is best for the people of this country; what separates him from a despot?
Hopefully this was just the grandstanding of a lame duck, wanting to make things better. Hopefully these were the words of a frustrated man who realizes he doesn't have the time left in office to do the things he wanted to do. Hopefully he was merely angry at not just the Republicans who have not cooperated, but also his own party which failed to support him on many issues. But that is really my point. When your own party does not get behind you, you need to consider that you may be wrong.
When the President attempts to enact policy, without congressional approval, should that carry the full weight of law? That is not an executive order. That is a Royal Decree.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Colorado and Marijuana
I am not going to bore you with Colorado's legalization of marijuana. I'm sure by now you've all made your jokes. I am going to analyse what I believe will happen, in the next year or so, in the form of several scenarios.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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-)
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
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)