Saturday, October 22, 2011
Obama accused of sending troops to kill Christians
In yet another of his attempts to whip up the uneducated and uninformed masses of Red-Publican listeners, Rush "His Fatness" Limbaugh has made wild, unfounded accusations against our POTUS.
He accurately reports that Obama is sending troops to Uganda to help quell some violence. Where he gets it all KINDS of crazy wrong is when he uses the name of the violent group to support his accusations.
The LRA, or "Lord's Resistance Army" certainly sounds like it would be the sort of thing Limbaugh would support.
The problem lies in the fact that the name is just that: A name. And, as Shakespeare once wrote A Rose, By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet. and, by inference, A Death Squad, By Any Other Name Would Kill/Kidnap/Maim/Rape/Pillage As Much.
And, Limbaugh has done his usual quality work when it comes to finding out what he's talking about. Or, for those not familiar with his "quality work", you could just assume I mean :
As Little As Possible.(He read the Wikipedia page that was created and edited by the LRA...)
Here is the comedic breakdown of events, by Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report. Yes, Colbert plays it for laughs, but as my kid would say: "It's Funny, Because It's True."
He accurately reports that Obama is sending troops to Uganda to help quell some violence. Where he gets it all KINDS of crazy wrong is when he uses the name of the violent group to support his accusations.
The LRA, or "Lord's Resistance Army" certainly sounds like it would be the sort of thing Limbaugh would support.
The problem lies in the fact that the name is just that: A name. And, as Shakespeare once wrote A Rose, By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet. and, by inference, A Death Squad, By Any Other Name Would Kill/Kidnap/Maim/Rape/Pillage As Much.
And, Limbaugh has done his usual quality work when it comes to finding out what he's talking about. Or, for those not familiar with his "quality work", you could just assume I mean :
As Little As Possible.(He read the Wikipedia page that was created and edited by the LRA...)
Here is the comedic breakdown of events, by Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report. Yes, Colbert plays it for laughs, but as my kid would say: "It's Funny, Because It's True."
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The "Hockey Stick" Graph Shown to be accurate
A couple of years ago, in 2009, a small group of Al Gore Haters, looking to discredit his constant pontificating on Climate Change, actually broke into the email accounts of some of the prominent researchers.
Therein, they found the programming code used for plotting the data:
Now, I will confess to being out of the programming game for a couple of years, and my understanding of the above code is also restricted by the fact that the subroutines referenced are not available for me to review. But, I don't see anything here that screams gross "data cooking".
I see what *might* be corrections applied to data collected near population centers, which would be artificially elevated due to high radiant heat from man made objects, like tarmac, concrete and asphalt...
The resulting graph (below) had a distinct "hockey stick" shape" as the mean temperature rose in the last few decades. Skeptics claimed the shape was due entirely to the "corrections" seen above.
Well, to make a long, and highly contentious story short, those who got all worked up over the supposed data cooking hired and funded an independent team of researchers to basically run the whole thing over again from scratch.
Then a funny thing happened. Today, in fact. The results from the new, nay-sayer funded, research were published.
The results confirm a one degree (Celsius) average rise in the overall global temperature. Some places were higher, some lower. The apparently rapid melting of the ice caps could be caused by a single degree rise from "freezing" to "not freezing", right?
I have seen some amazingly venomous attacks posted on various message boards and blogs. Some of them used "junk science" to defend their attacks. CO2 energy absorption rates, energy sources, and so on.
To my ears, these ring with the same sound as those who said that all you had to do was look out over the ocean to see where the world ended.
Sure. Empirical observation may support your argument, until somebody comes along and actually GOES where you're pointing. And, as a few seconds of reflection will show, there are those that will STILL get red in the face, call you wrong, and criminally insane, and a threat to the safety of the world...
Even after you offer to take them to see what you've seen.
Therein, they found the programming code used for plotting the data:
; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’ ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Now, I will confess to being out of the programming game for a couple of years, and my understanding of the above code is also restricted by the fact that the subroutines referenced are not available for me to review. But, I don't see anything here that screams gross "data cooking".
I see what *might* be corrections applied to data collected near population centers, which would be artificially elevated due to high radiant heat from man made objects, like tarmac, concrete and asphalt...
The resulting graph (below) had a distinct "hockey stick" shape" as the mean temperature rose in the last few decades. Skeptics claimed the shape was due entirely to the "corrections" seen above.
Well, to make a long, and highly contentious story short, those who got all worked up over the supposed data cooking hired and funded an independent team of researchers to basically run the whole thing over again from scratch.
Then a funny thing happened. Today, in fact. The results from the new, nay-sayer funded, research were published.
The results confirm a one degree (Celsius) average rise in the overall global temperature. Some places were higher, some lower. The apparently rapid melting of the ice caps could be caused by a single degree rise from "freezing" to "not freezing", right?
I have seen some amazingly venomous attacks posted on various message boards and blogs. Some of them used "junk science" to defend their attacks. CO2 energy absorption rates, energy sources, and so on.
To my ears, these ring with the same sound as those who said that all you had to do was look out over the ocean to see where the world ended.
Sure. Empirical observation may support your argument, until somebody comes along and actually GOES where you're pointing. And, as a few seconds of reflection will show, there are those that will STILL get red in the face, call you wrong, and criminally insane, and a threat to the safety of the world...
Even after you offer to take them to see what you've seen.
Monday, October 17, 2011
A Recent Conversation on a popular Social site.
The following post was supposed to go up early this morning. Something else caught my attention, and had to be dealt with first. After spending two hours vomiting (both literally, and in the more prosaic meaning, by writing) over that something, I can now return to my planned schedule.
During a discussion of the overall perceived benefits and/or disadvantages of the OccupyWallSt. protests, one of the commenters made the following statement:
(When asking permission to quote that individual here, I promised anonymity. Edited for errors in formatting only.)
"There's a simple way to create change. It's called voting. I've heard commentary describing 23% of REGISTERED voters (not eligible voters, just the ones that took the time to get on the voter rolls) as a high turnout. In many other countries (Denmark, for example), 89% of ELIGIBLE voters would be considered a LOW turnout. Instead of getting in the way of traffic, get a bunch of people in each district to send their Representative AND Senator a petition simply stating something like "We the undersigned are voters in your district and have the following complaints about how you represent us. The corporate interest you favor supply 75 % of your campaign funding. We can supply 100% of the votes that will put in someone willing to actually represent us. Which do you need more?" The catch is, this works only if people follow up on it BY ACTUALLY VOTING"
My response:
"Your model is the ideal, not the reality. Yes, actually voting can make a small difference, but with all the so called Checks and Balances, your candidate is unable to be effective in office. For example: If Obama had not met resistance on his policies from Congress and the Senate, don't you think he would have been able to keep all his campaign promises? And then there's the lobbyists, whose job it is to pester the elected officials 24/7. Corporations are the only ones that can afford to apply that kind of political pressure to the elected. That's how the tax laws got where they are. That's how the labor laws got where they are. That's how the import tariffs got where they are. Voting gets "your guy" in office. If you can somehow find a way to vote for congress and senate in every state, then voting will do what you wish it did.
Then you have the opposing voters...
I'm not racially biased, unless you count that horror called the Red Neck. Demagogue BELIEVERS.
A sound bite isn't policy. Especially when the sound bites are "We Need to be worried about the rise of Soviet Russia" (spoken this past summer [2011] by a GOP front runner...) and other phrases of equal intelligence. When people do their civic duty by doing more than JUST voting, but becoming educated about the facts, issues, and long term effects of policy, rather than just snippets of demagoguery, then we can sit home and depend on others to be as responsible as we."
At the time, I felt it was an important set of ideas to relate. Both the original post, as well as my response. But, the previously mentioned "something" has really knocked me for a loop.
During a discussion of the overall perceived benefits and/or disadvantages of the OccupyWallSt. protests, one of the commenters made the following statement:
(When asking permission to quote that individual here, I promised anonymity. Edited for errors in formatting only.)
"There's a simple way to create change. It's called voting. I've heard commentary describing 23% of REGISTERED voters (not eligible voters, just the ones that took the time to get on the voter rolls) as a high turnout. In many other countries (Denmark, for example), 89% of ELIGIBLE voters would be considered a LOW turnout. Instead of getting in the way of traffic, get a bunch of people in each district to send their Representative AND Senator a petition simply stating something like "We the undersigned are voters in your district and have the following complaints about how you represent us. The corporate interest you favor supply 75 % of your campaign funding. We can supply 100% of the votes that will put in someone willing to actually represent us. Which do you need more?" The catch is, this works only if people follow up on it BY ACTUALLY VOTING"
My response:
"Your model is the ideal, not the reality. Yes, actually voting can make a small difference, but with all the so called Checks and Balances, your candidate is unable to be effective in office. For example: If Obama had not met resistance on his policies from Congress and the Senate, don't you think he would have been able to keep all his campaign promises? And then there's the lobbyists, whose job it is to pester the elected officials 24/7. Corporations are the only ones that can afford to apply that kind of political pressure to the elected. That's how the tax laws got where they are. That's how the labor laws got where they are. That's how the import tariffs got where they are. Voting gets "your guy" in office. If you can somehow find a way to vote for congress and senate in every state, then voting will do what you wish it did.
Then you have the opposing voters...
I'm not racially biased, unless you count that horror called the Red Neck. Demagogue BELIEVERS.
A sound bite isn't policy. Especially when the sound bites are "We Need to be worried about the rise of Soviet Russia" (spoken this past summer [2011] by a GOP front runner...) and other phrases of equal intelligence. When people do their civic duty by doing more than JUST voting, but becoming educated about the facts, issues, and long term effects of policy, rather than just snippets of demagoguery, then we can sit home and depend on others to be as responsible as we."
At the time, I felt it was an important set of ideas to relate. Both the original post, as well as my response. But, the previously mentioned "something" has really knocked me for a loop.
A Typical Republican... Part III
Wow. Just wow.
For those who wanted to see examples of demagoguery...
Tea Party Nation Leader says #OccupyWallSt. organizers and protesters are Communists and Nazis
In the sixth of some very short paragraphs, he claims that communists and nazis are socialists "hate freedom and liberty and both want to see freedom and liberty replaced with tyranny."
Just. Wow.
Here we have what is probably the best example of a demagogue that I have EVER seen in my lifetime.
Using emotionally charged rhetoric, provably FALSE rhetoric at that, to "Rabble Rouse"
Inflaming indignation in those that either can't, or won't be bothered to fact-check his references to communism, Nazi-ism, or socialism and the basic tenets of each.
My grandpappy always taught me to "know my enemy", which is the ONLY reason I took the time to study each of these political ideologies.
You can't avoid something when you don't even know what it looks like...
You can't fight something when your own personal ignorance allows it to slip past you unrecognized.
That we live in such a world as this. Where people like this Judson Phillips can count on the support of the uninformed and uneducated. Undeniably taking advantage of their fears and biases.
And how brazen of Judson Phillips to be using the proven tactics of Nazi-ism and fascism in order to get that support...
And, what makes me actually physically ill is the sure knowledge that he will get away with it.
I am shaken to my very core.
For maybe the third or fourth time in my entire life, I find myself hoping there is a God, so that this Judson Phillips will be assured of his due, his eternal punishment.
I firmly believe that while #OWS is important, and needed, this Judson Phillips has shown me that the problems of this world are much more basic, and primal than just some economic woes.
If we need to rise up, then we need to rise up against things like this, as well.
For those who wanted to see examples of demagoguery...
Tea Party Nation Leader says #OccupyWallSt. organizers and protesters are Communists and Nazis
In the sixth of some very short paragraphs, he claims that communists and nazis are socialists "hate freedom and liberty and both want to see freedom and liberty replaced with tyranny."
Just. Wow.
Here we have what is probably the best example of a demagogue that I have EVER seen in my lifetime.
Using emotionally charged rhetoric, provably FALSE rhetoric at that, to "Rabble Rouse"
Inflaming indignation in those that either can't, or won't be bothered to fact-check his references to communism, Nazi-ism, or socialism and the basic tenets of each.
My grandpappy always taught me to "know my enemy", which is the ONLY reason I took the time to study each of these political ideologies.
You can't avoid something when you don't even know what it looks like...
You can't fight something when your own personal ignorance allows it to slip past you unrecognized.
That we live in such a world as this. Where people like this Judson Phillips can count on the support of the uninformed and uneducated. Undeniably taking advantage of their fears and biases.
And how brazen of Judson Phillips to be using the proven tactics of Nazi-ism and fascism in order to get that support...
And, what makes me actually physically ill is the sure knowledge that he will get away with it.
I am shaken to my very core.
For maybe the third or fourth time in my entire life, I find myself hoping there is a God, so that this Judson Phillips will be assured of his due, his eternal punishment.
I firmly believe that while #OWS is important, and needed, this Judson Phillips has shown me that the problems of this world are much more basic, and primal than just some economic woes.
If we need to rise up, then we need to rise up against things like this, as well.
Musings on Libertarianism...
The following was inspired, in its entirety, by seeing a town vehicle, marked "Town Of *place name* Electrical Inspector" drive past me, as I was returning from dropping my children at school.
Funny, how the mind works...
I have long considered myself a devout Libertarian. That description can be very confusing to some. Understandably so. (If you follow the above link, you'll find a Wiki entry that covers every color of the word.)
I thought I would take a minute to help define exactly what my particular set of beliefs are.
FAIR WARNING: This will be a very 'stream of consciousness', and/or 'train of thought' kind of post that will seem to ramble. If things go well, those ramblings will direct you to the unified set of ideas that will help you understand the purpose of this post. (I hope) So please, bear with me.
This country, and the war that gave it independence, was based on a set of principles that included individual freedoms as one of the most basic promises to the governed. Aside from that, there were certain protections from forceful coercion, either by foreign governments, fellow citizens, or other entities, commercial, religious, or political. This included the execution of contracts that were obviously, and demonstrably unfair to one of the contractually bound parties. (It was a way to protect the uneducated and uninformed from predatory practices. Something even the Forefathers could see was one of the possible outcomes from a Capitalist society.)
The paradigm has shifted, considerably, over the centuries. To use a phrase I had originally thought was of my own invention, it could be described as having moved toward, and entirely into a Barnum-ist economy. (Barnum famously having said: 'There's a sucker born every minute.") People and corporations will take advantage, at every opportunity, of people's ignorance to turn a profit. Best exemplified by Barnum's famous "This Way to The Egress" sign. The ignorant (Notice, please, that I am making a distinction between "ignorant/uninformed", and "stupid".) would see the sign, and think there was some exotic display on the other side of the door, when in fact the word Egress was just another way of saying "Exit". There was no way to get back in to see the rest of the wonders without paying admission a second time.
Many years of insider deals, political misconduct, and just plain criminal activity by our elected officials has allowed this Barnumist attitude to become the norm. The Mortgage Crisis is the best example I can think of. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples, and I welcome them in the comments.
So, in the course of 235 years, we have progressed to this point. A point where the populace has taken to the streets in some of the biggest cities around the globe to protest.
Personally, I think that the protests are pretty cool, in that some people are not mollified by Bread & Circuses, and realize the need to speak out, if only to make other people aware of the problem.
Now, I had to explain Barnumism in order to provide the description of the "villain".
(A very recent, like minutes ago, discussion allowed me to see that we have moved past Barnumism, and into Walmart-ism, where entities exert financial, and political pressure in order to achieve wholly selfish goals.)
So, anyway. back to Libertarianism. Sort of.
After this nearly a quarter of a millennium, we have laws on the books forbidding the tying of alligators to fire hydrants, and the carrying of ice cream in the back pocket of your pants.
(Ok, ya. I know these are extreme examples, and they are purely on a State, or even Town/City level, but you get the idea I'm trying to get across.)
Really? I mean, really?
To me, personally, this best exemplifies the NEED for Libertarianism. Thousands of volumes of legislated "protections" for people and entities, when a very liberal estimate of 50 volumes would do.
Someone, I have no idea who, once said: You can't legislate morality.Someone else (The famous and prolific writer Unknown) said: You can't legislate stupidity.
And yet we have thousands of laws, around the country, that try to do just that. There are just as many, if not more, laws that try to govern the ethics of individuals and businesses.
My first instinct is to say, again: Really? I mean, really?
But, we're back to Barnumism & Walmart-ism. People, and therefore corporations which are run by people, will take advantage, at every opportunity, in order to get ahead. Face it. We've all done it, to some extent.
But, would we, as individuals of conscience, do it to the tune of a million dollars? A billion? Especially knowing the effect on the "fleeced" that it would have?
Some people will answer a resounding "YES!"
That's why the gazillion laws have wound up on the books.
And that is why we need to retain some protections, in law, for the citizenry.
And let's not even go into the Tax Code. There are degree programs at some very prestigious schools, just to deal with it... Seriously. A Master's degree, just to understand the Tax Code? Really? I mean, really?
There are many that feel Libertarianism includes a significant reduction in government, overall, as well as government's power over the individual. While in principle, I think this is a good thing, there are some basic exceptions that need to be in place: (Here's the part where the Electrical Inspector had its influence on my thoughts)
Protections from the above described Barnumists, and Walmart-ists. Individuals, as well as those that represent corporate entities. (Including, unfortunately, builders of homes and commercial properties. Being people, they will sometimes take shortcuts, if allowed. Sometimes, to the detriment of other people. Up to and including placing those people at risk of injury and/or death.)
I suppose we could TRY to allow them to self-regulate, but that hasn't worked out so well in other industries, like those that produce food for human consumption.
Infrastructure. Roads and bridges, Emergency Services, Public Education, transport services for the aforementioned, as well as public transportation services. And, the previously mentioned Building/Electrical inspectors.
Protections from coercion, either through physical, or financial means. (This includes, if you think about it: theft, muggings, carjacking, extortion, racketeering, and all crimes of violence where you are coerced into surrendering life, liberty, personal security and/or property.)
Protections and support for those displaced and dispossessed by the current "normal" practices.
( I know, I know. How do you determine how long, and how much. We'll leave that for a later discussion. I, frankly, don't have the answer.)
We might, as a society, be ready to accept a nation without child labor laws, as we kinda sorta "know better" by now. ( I would like to think )
So. Up to this point we have reviewed Barnum-ism, and some of the points of my version of Libertarianism.
To sum up:
Eliminate the susceptibility to Barnum-ism, by education, and other means.
Spend the required time to eliminate the attempts to legislate morality, ethics and wisdom, thereby cleaning up the criminal codes. (Tell me that THAT won't create jobs...)
Remove and revise the tax codes into a more equitable and more easily understood form. (I don't have the answers here, either. Only suggestions. I do not have my Master's degree in Tax Law... But! I DO know that one cannot be assured of fair representation without being able to understand the tax codes themselves. I seem to remember something about "No Taxation without Representation")
Retain and restructure the government's involvement in the day to day minutia of the governed. (more streamlined and MUCH less invasive, please. Do we REALLY need the TSA? Research the actual effectiveness of the TSA, and then be honst with yourself, and others, about it.)
This includes infrastructure.Unless employed specifically to build, maintain, and or operate infrastructure, the average citizenry won't have the time to preform the required work.
(We could take some of the burden off of the infrastructure by increasing funding to, and for volunteer services like some Fire companies and Citizen Police.)
My particular take on it is this: The government that interferes with the day to day life of the governed people least, governs best.
I will admit that I don't have all the answers. I can't honestly say that I have even a significant fraction of the answers. I wish I did.
What I do know is that I have lived by the following maxim: "Maybe I don't have the answer to that, but someone does. Lets find them!"
As always, I welcome your thoughts. Keep it clean, only attack the ideas, and be prepared to back up what you say with verifiable fact. Unless of course, you are claiming opinion, and willing to admit that it is just that: opinion.
Funny, how the mind works...
I have long considered myself a devout Libertarian. That description can be very confusing to some. Understandably so. (If you follow the above link, you'll find a Wiki entry that covers every color of the word.)
I thought I would take a minute to help define exactly what my particular set of beliefs are.
FAIR WARNING: This will be a very 'stream of consciousness', and/or 'train of thought' kind of post that will seem to ramble. If things go well, those ramblings will direct you to the unified set of ideas that will help you understand the purpose of this post. (I hope) So please, bear with me.
This country, and the war that gave it independence, was based on a set of principles that included individual freedoms as one of the most basic promises to the governed. Aside from that, there were certain protections from forceful coercion, either by foreign governments, fellow citizens, or other entities, commercial, religious, or political. This included the execution of contracts that were obviously, and demonstrably unfair to one of the contractually bound parties. (It was a way to protect the uneducated and uninformed from predatory practices. Something even the Forefathers could see was one of the possible outcomes from a Capitalist society.)
The paradigm has shifted, considerably, over the centuries. To use a phrase I had originally thought was of my own invention, it could be described as having moved toward, and entirely into a Barnum-ist economy. (Barnum famously having said: 'There's a sucker born every minute.") People and corporations will take advantage, at every opportunity, of people's ignorance to turn a profit. Best exemplified by Barnum's famous "This Way to The Egress" sign. The ignorant (Notice, please, that I am making a distinction between "ignorant/uninformed", and "stupid".) would see the sign, and think there was some exotic display on the other side of the door, when in fact the word Egress was just another way of saying "Exit". There was no way to get back in to see the rest of the wonders without paying admission a second time.
Many years of insider deals, political misconduct, and just plain criminal activity by our elected officials has allowed this Barnumist attitude to become the norm. The Mortgage Crisis is the best example I can think of. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples, and I welcome them in the comments.
So, in the course of 235 years, we have progressed to this point. A point where the populace has taken to the streets in some of the biggest cities around the globe to protest.
Personally, I think that the protests are pretty cool, in that some people are not mollified by Bread & Circuses, and realize the need to speak out, if only to make other people aware of the problem.
Now, I had to explain Barnumism in order to provide the description of the "villain".
(A very recent, like minutes ago, discussion allowed me to see that we have moved past Barnumism, and into Walmart-ism, where entities exert financial, and political pressure in order to achieve wholly selfish goals.)
So, anyway. back to Libertarianism. Sort of.
After this nearly a quarter of a millennium, we have laws on the books forbidding the tying of alligators to fire hydrants, and the carrying of ice cream in the back pocket of your pants.
(Ok, ya. I know these are extreme examples, and they are purely on a State, or even Town/City level, but you get the idea I'm trying to get across.)
Really? I mean, really?
To me, personally, this best exemplifies the NEED for Libertarianism. Thousands of volumes of legislated "protections" for people and entities, when a very liberal estimate of 50 volumes would do.
Someone, I have no idea who, once said: You can't legislate morality.Someone else (The famous and prolific writer Unknown) said: You can't legislate stupidity.
And yet we have thousands of laws, around the country, that try to do just that. There are just as many, if not more, laws that try to govern the ethics of individuals and businesses.
My first instinct is to say, again: Really? I mean, really?
But, we're back to Barnumism & Walmart-ism. People, and therefore corporations which are run by people, will take advantage, at every opportunity, in order to get ahead. Face it. We've all done it, to some extent.
But, would we, as individuals of conscience, do it to the tune of a million dollars? A billion? Especially knowing the effect on the "fleeced" that it would have?
Some people will answer a resounding "YES!"
That's why the gazillion laws have wound up on the books.
And that is why we need to retain some protections, in law, for the citizenry.
And let's not even go into the Tax Code. There are degree programs at some very prestigious schools, just to deal with it... Seriously. A Master's degree, just to understand the Tax Code? Really? I mean, really?
There are many that feel Libertarianism includes a significant reduction in government, overall, as well as government's power over the individual. While in principle, I think this is a good thing, there are some basic exceptions that need to be in place: (Here's the part where the Electrical Inspector had its influence on my thoughts)
Protections from the above described Barnumists, and Walmart-ists. Individuals, as well as those that represent corporate entities. (Including, unfortunately, builders of homes and commercial properties. Being people, they will sometimes take shortcuts, if allowed. Sometimes, to the detriment of other people. Up to and including placing those people at risk of injury and/or death.)
I suppose we could TRY to allow them to self-regulate, but that hasn't worked out so well in other industries, like those that produce food for human consumption.
Infrastructure. Roads and bridges, Emergency Services, Public Education, transport services for the aforementioned, as well as public transportation services. And, the previously mentioned Building/Electrical inspectors.
Protections from coercion, either through physical, or financial means. (This includes, if you think about it: theft, muggings, carjacking, extortion, racketeering, and all crimes of violence where you are coerced into surrendering life, liberty, personal security and/or property.)
Protections and support for those displaced and dispossessed by the current "normal" practices.
( I know, I know. How do you determine how long, and how much. We'll leave that for a later discussion. I, frankly, don't have the answer.)
We might, as a society, be ready to accept a nation without child labor laws, as we kinda sorta "know better" by now. ( I would like to think )
So. Up to this point we have reviewed Barnum-ism, and some of the points of my version of Libertarianism.
To sum up:
Eliminate the susceptibility to Barnum-ism, by education, and other means.
Spend the required time to eliminate the attempts to legislate morality, ethics and wisdom, thereby cleaning up the criminal codes. (Tell me that THAT won't create jobs...)
Remove and revise the tax codes into a more equitable and more easily understood form. (I don't have the answers here, either. Only suggestions. I do not have my Master's degree in Tax Law... But! I DO know that one cannot be assured of fair representation without being able to understand the tax codes themselves. I seem to remember something about "No Taxation without Representation")
Retain and restructure the government's involvement in the day to day minutia of the governed. (more streamlined and MUCH less invasive, please. Do we REALLY need the TSA? Research the actual effectiveness of the TSA, and then be honst with yourself, and others, about it.)
This includes infrastructure.Unless employed specifically to build, maintain, and or operate infrastructure, the average citizenry won't have the time to preform the required work.
(We could take some of the burden off of the infrastructure by increasing funding to, and for volunteer services like some Fire companies and Citizen Police.)
My particular take on it is this: The government that interferes with the day to day life of the governed people least, governs best.
I will admit that I don't have all the answers. I can't honestly say that I have even a significant fraction of the answers. I wish I did.
What I do know is that I have lived by the following maxim: "Maybe I don't have the answer to that, but someone does. Lets find them!"
As always, I welcome your thoughts. Keep it clean, only attack the ideas, and be prepared to back up what you say with verifiable fact. Unless of course, you are claiming opinion, and willing to admit that it is just that: opinion.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
The Gun Is Civilization
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Thursday, October 13, 2011
5 law officers among 70 charged in Arkansas drug trafficking bust.
5 law officers among 70 charged in Arkansas drug trafficking bust
I know this is a fairly average news report, but ONE thing just LEAPS out at me.
"800 federal and local authorities arrested 51 of the 70 people, officials said."
It took 800 Law Enforcement and National Guard to make this bust? 800!?! Why?
Please see items 4 & 12 here...
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Maybe this will generate some comments
So far, I have been using what I hope has been logic to demonstrate the "evil" of the Dark Side Republican Conservative Right Wing political party here in the U.S.
After many micro-seconds of thought, I decided to try a different tactic.
There are many out there (I'm not one of them...) who hold forth that the Conservatives are the forefront of a wave of Religious/Moral correction. A shift toward honoring God that has gone lacking in our nation.
DISCLAIMER: I was raised in a church that combines critical thinking and scientific method with scripture, arriving at a place that makes The New Christians, the current army of evangelical Born Agains, the right wing, southern "hillbilly" "Redneck" NASCAR and Professional Wrestling viewing core of the conservative voting populace, look like they need helmets, full time nursing care, and a short yellow bus...
With that in mind, I will try to demonstrate how scripture teaches us to support the Liberals in an effort to follow the Teachings of Christ.
This will be an ongoing project, with each post focusing on how one aspect of Conservative political/financial/social behavior goes against scripture.
Today, we'll take on the situation with the #OccupyWallSt protestors, and the Conservative reactions to them. Only because it's the most politically relevant right now.
Mathew 21:12 "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."
This is typically called The Cleansing of The Temple" and illustrates that the church is not the place for business. Not the place for profit.
To fully understand this, we have to ask ourselves: How did the Money Changers get there in the first place?
The underlying idea to Mathew 21:12 is that the Theocratic rulers were allowing it. It isn't explicitly said that they were profiting from it, but what other reason could they have?
They were allowing people (including themselves)to make a profit at the expense of the faithful.
The priests allowed this. And, by not preventing it, it could be said they encouraged it. Tacit approval?
Those charged with the care of the people and the souls of those people had allowed people to set up tables, charge money for exchanging one form of money for another, so that the faithful would have the right kind of money to give in offering.
The Cleansing wasn't just getting the money changers and dove sellers out of the temple. It was getting the greed and collusion and those in power that supported and encouraged that greed (that's what I meant by collusion, by the way) out of the temple, as well.
Our Conservative Leaders tell us to work hard, according to (they say) the scripture. Pay our debts, according to (they say) the scripture. Obey, according to (they say) the scriptures.
#OccupyWallSt is trying to cleanse.
I, and you, know that it isn't a temple they are trying to cleanse, but the cleansing has almost as much meaning as if it were.
The Conservatives are giving more than tacit approval to the profiteering of the banks and "money changers", and the debt holders.(There used to be much more effective laws against usury...)
They legislate in favor of the companies, rather than the people they are tasked with caring for, and about. (Lawsuit protections, economic and environmental favoritism. The list goes on.)
Tax laws give benefits to the wealthy, while putting the vast majority of the tax burden on those who can afford it the least.
(Ya, I'm gonna harp on this until I have no reason to anymore...)
From what I have been able to pick up from various scriptures, I have a hard time finding any support for the phrase "Suffering is good for the soul" (I'm willing to be corrected. Always. Just have verifiable proof on hand, otherwise you'll be lumped in with the rest.)
From my long years of being a habitual observer (think of it as a form of OCD. I watch what people do. How they behave. I've gotten very good at accurate prediction from these observations.) "Suffering" only makes for miserable people. Miserable people spread it around. They are angry. Hurt. And, they act that way to others.
It could *almost* be said that suffering produces a low grade evil that spreads, causing more suffering, which spreads in its turn, etc. ad nauseum. (Not an original idea. Social satirists have been saying as much for a long time.)
So. We have arrived here, through only a few minutes thought, to a place where the Right Wing Conservative leaders are spreading a low grade evil throughout our nation. Infecting the #Other99% with soul damaging afflictions of spirit.
To use a Republican tactic, we can now make the leap from logic and critical thought to an emotional reaction.
Conservatives are the Agents of Satan!
After many micro-seconds of thought, I decided to try a different tactic.
There are many out there (I'm not one of them...) who hold forth that the Conservatives are the forefront of a wave of Religious/Moral correction. A shift toward honoring God that has gone lacking in our nation.
DISCLAIMER: I was raised in a church that combines critical thinking and scientific method with scripture, arriving at a place that makes The New Christians, the current army of evangelical Born Agains, the right wing, southern "hillbilly" "Redneck" NASCAR and Professional Wrestling viewing core of the conservative voting populace, look like they need helmets, full time nursing care, and a short yellow bus...
With that in mind, I will try to demonstrate how scripture teaches us to support the Liberals in an effort to follow the Teachings of Christ.
This will be an ongoing project, with each post focusing on how one aspect of Conservative political/financial/social behavior goes against scripture.
Today, we'll take on the situation with the #OccupyWallSt protestors, and the Conservative reactions to them. Only because it's the most politically relevant right now.
Mathew 21:12 "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."
This is typically called The Cleansing of The Temple" and illustrates that the church is not the place for business. Not the place for profit.
To fully understand this, we have to ask ourselves: How did the Money Changers get there in the first place?
The underlying idea to Mathew 21:12 is that the Theocratic rulers were allowing it. It isn't explicitly said that they were profiting from it, but what other reason could they have?
They were allowing people (including themselves)to make a profit at the expense of the faithful.
The priests allowed this. And, by not preventing it, it could be said they encouraged it. Tacit approval?
Those charged with the care of the people and the souls of those people had allowed people to set up tables, charge money for exchanging one form of money for another, so that the faithful would have the right kind of money to give in offering.
The Cleansing wasn't just getting the money changers and dove sellers out of the temple. It was getting the greed and collusion and those in power that supported and encouraged that greed (that's what I meant by collusion, by the way) out of the temple, as well.
Our Conservative Leaders tell us to work hard, according to (they say) the scripture. Pay our debts, according to (they say) the scripture. Obey, according to (they say) the scriptures.
#OccupyWallSt is trying to cleanse.
I, and you, know that it isn't a temple they are trying to cleanse, but the cleansing has almost as much meaning as if it were.
The Conservatives are giving more than tacit approval to the profiteering of the banks and "money changers", and the debt holders.(There used to be much more effective laws against usury...)
They legislate in favor of the companies, rather than the people they are tasked with caring for, and about. (Lawsuit protections, economic and environmental favoritism. The list goes on.)
Tax laws give benefits to the wealthy, while putting the vast majority of the tax burden on those who can afford it the least.
(Ya, I'm gonna harp on this until I have no reason to anymore...)
From what I have been able to pick up from various scriptures, I have a hard time finding any support for the phrase "Suffering is good for the soul" (I'm willing to be corrected. Always. Just have verifiable proof on hand, otherwise you'll be lumped in with the rest.)
From my long years of being a habitual observer (think of it as a form of OCD. I watch what people do. How they behave. I've gotten very good at accurate prediction from these observations.) "Suffering" only makes for miserable people. Miserable people spread it around. They are angry. Hurt. And, they act that way to others.
It could *almost* be said that suffering produces a low grade evil that spreads, causing more suffering, which spreads in its turn, etc. ad nauseum. (Not an original idea. Social satirists have been saying as much for a long time.)
So. We have arrived here, through only a few minutes thought, to a place where the Right Wing Conservative leaders are spreading a low grade evil throughout our nation. Infecting the #Other99% with soul damaging afflictions of spirit.
To use a Republican tactic, we can now make the leap from logic and critical thought to an emotional reaction.
Conservatives are the Agents of Satan!
A Typical Republican... Part II
Now this just makes me angry. See if you can guess why.
(I wish I could ascribe credit and copyright to this, but I have no idea where it came from. Suffice it to say that I hold no claim to it.)
I was once married. I was so very much in love. But, as time went on, she changed. As part of that change, she began to blame me for things that she saw as wrong. She would completely ignore the things that she did that led up to my perceived wrongs. Lawyers, marriage counselors, and people with degrees in psychology would point this out to her, but she would *not* look past my actions. She would not see what *she had done* that gave me no option but to react the ways I did, she only saw what I did.
There are actually tests for psychopathy that include that exact behavior as one of the indicators, suggesting that my now ex-wife had become a psychopath late in our marriage.
I am willing to forgive the damage she did to me. I am NOT willing to forgive the damage she did to our children.
When you have brought children into the world, you have a responsibility to them. Her actions made it obvious to all that she was only concerned with herself.
Now, you may be asking yourself how this applies to the above cartoon. I think its obvious, but I can understand how some people might not see it that way.
So...
When you take a job in government, you take on the responsibility to care for the people that elected you. They should be your first concern. They are the reason you are there, and not just because they elected you, but because our U.S. government is SUPPOSED to be "For, Of, and By, the People".
That is Item One. Item Two is the apparent psychopathy of the Right Wing. The above cartoon takes a slice of a larger story, and, taking it out of context, uses it to illustrate a viewpoint, or stance.
What we aren't shown in the cartoon is that the man at the door was watching out the window, and saw those self same Trick-or-Treaters steal the candy away from all the kids as they left his yard. The "Democrat" in the panel is reacting to things that happened prior to what is shown.
The Right Wing in today's U.S. does this exact same thing. They ignore the actions they have taken, and winge, and moan, and toss out little snippets out of context that they think support them.
On the one hand, they decry the Left Wing "Liberal Ivory Tower" and how they perceive us to assume there's a large segment of the population that are unable to form a cogent thought, while with the other hand, they use demagoguery with wild abandon, thereby illustrating that they believe that the Red voters are exactly those that need small little bite-sized ideas fed to them, in order to create the voters that they want and need...
Remember, kids: A good Citizen is an Informed Citizen. One that knows how to get all the info, think for themselves, (actually think, mind you), and vote accordingly.
I was once married. I was so very much in love. But, as time went on, she changed. As part of that change, she began to blame me for things that she saw as wrong. She would completely ignore the things that she did that led up to my perceived wrongs. Lawyers, marriage counselors, and people with degrees in psychology would point this out to her, but she would *not* look past my actions. She would not see what *she had done* that gave me no option but to react the ways I did, she only saw what I did.
There are actually tests for psychopathy that include that exact behavior as one of the indicators, suggesting that my now ex-wife had become a psychopath late in our marriage.
I am willing to forgive the damage she did to me. I am NOT willing to forgive the damage she did to our children.
When you have brought children into the world, you have a responsibility to them. Her actions made it obvious to all that she was only concerned with herself.
Now, you may be asking yourself how this applies to the above cartoon. I think its obvious, but I can understand how some people might not see it that way.
So...
When you take a job in government, you take on the responsibility to care for the people that elected you. They should be your first concern. They are the reason you are there, and not just because they elected you, but because our U.S. government is SUPPOSED to be "For, Of, and By, the People".
That is Item One. Item Two is the apparent psychopathy of the Right Wing. The above cartoon takes a slice of a larger story, and, taking it out of context, uses it to illustrate a viewpoint, or stance.
What we aren't shown in the cartoon is that the man at the door was watching out the window, and saw those self same Trick-or-Treaters steal the candy away from all the kids as they left his yard. The "Democrat" in the panel is reacting to things that happened prior to what is shown.
The Right Wing in today's U.S. does this exact same thing. They ignore the actions they have taken, and winge, and moan, and toss out little snippets out of context that they think support them.
On the one hand, they decry the Left Wing "Liberal Ivory Tower" and how they perceive us to assume there's a large segment of the population that are unable to form a cogent thought, while with the other hand, they use demagoguery with wild abandon, thereby illustrating that they believe that the Red voters are exactly those that need small little bite-sized ideas fed to them, in order to create the voters that they want and need...
Remember, kids: A good Citizen is an Informed Citizen. One that knows how to get all the info, think for themselves, (actually think, mind you), and vote accordingly.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Rick Scott, the ex-corporate CEO turned Tea Party governor of Florida
Rick Scott, the ex-corporate CEO turned Tea Party governor of Florida, had some choice words for college majors who aren't looking for degrees that are useful to corporations.
My initial reaction to this, my knee-jerk, gut felt reaction is to say:
Of course he doesn't want kids to get a degree that might require they be versed in critical thinking and scientific method.
Rick Scott, being a Republican, sees little use in a degree that might result in adults that are able to take in all the information, analyze it, reject the false, and then re-test to confirm the true.
That kind of adult would make a HORRIBLE Conservative voter.
On the other hand, it's exactly what the Liberals hope and pray for in their voters.
My initial reaction to this, my knee-jerk, gut felt reaction is to say:
Of course he doesn't want kids to get a degree that might require they be versed in critical thinking and scientific method.
Rick Scott, being a Republican, sees little use in a degree that might result in adults that are able to take in all the information, analyze it, reject the false, and then re-test to confirm the true.
That kind of adult would make a HORRIBLE Conservative voter.
On the other hand, it's exactly what the Liberals hope and pray for in their voters.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Jon Stewart: Parks and Demonstration
"Parks and Demonstration
America cannot expect a bunch of disenfranchised park-dwellers to come up with a solution to its economic woes -- they have a political ruling class to do that."
America cannot expect a bunch of disenfranchised park-dwellers to come up with a solution to its economic woes -- they have a political ruling class to do that."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Parks and Demonstration | ||||
| ||||
Local Fox News Affiliate Reporter Struck By Baton Wielding Police
Up to this point, I have only seen National Fox News snippets on the protests. None of them coming even close to being either objective, or portraying the police response as over the top.
In this report, even after having been subjected first hand to the police response, the reporter is at best, neutral.
I would have thought that the experience would have led the reporter to be more indignant. Like this fellow, who wasn't even there.
I really don't think this O'Donnell report is anything even close to "unbiased", but I guess somebody had to report it.
In this report, even after having been subjected first hand to the police response, the reporter is at best, neutral.
I would have thought that the experience would have led the reporter to be more indignant. Like this fellow, who wasn't even there.
I really don't think this O'Donnell report is anything even close to "unbiased", but I guess somebody had to report it.
Apology
I want to apologize for the weirdness of the ads recently. I think I got it figured out. They should fit the visual style of the blog, now.
I hope.
I hope.
Millionaire Surtax... I don't know how to feel about this.
In a recent NPR story, they reveal that Senator Reid has proposed a tax bill that would put more tax burden on higher income people.
I just don't know how to react to this. It is an honest attempt to fix things, or is it just a move to appease the recently disgruntled masses?
Either way, I don't think it's enough. Additionally, since its just a proposal at this point, I doubt it will get enough support to actually move through the legislative process.
I guess time will tell. Its a shame we haven't much time left.
I just don't know how to react to this. It is an honest attempt to fix things, or is it just a move to appease the recently disgruntled masses?
Either way, I don't think it's enough. Additionally, since its just a proposal at this point, I doubt it will get enough support to actually move through the legislative process.
I guess time will tell. Its a shame we haven't much time left.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
A Typical Republican...
Herman Cain to the Occupy Wall St. protesters: If you're not rich "you have only yourself to blame."
A fairly narrow-minded point of view, that demonstrates one of two things:
1) The speaker has a a very limited understanding of how things got this way, or:
2) It's an attempt at demagoguery, assuming the listeners will swallow this sound-bite, and spew it back, without a clear understanding of its meaning and background.
I have seen both things, sometimes in the same utterance, by all of the GOP hopefuls.
It is particularly frustrating for me because when all the recent "banking" issues hit the fan, (mortgage crisis, pension crisis, banking crisis) these people seem to want to blame the little guy with the bank account and the mortgage and the pension, rather than the Wall Street-ers who were entrusted with the ethical and legal handling of them.
Is it my fault that BoA needed a bail out? If not, then why were MY tax dollars used for it? Since I pay more per year in taxes than ALL of the BoA board of directors combined, I can safely say they contributed very little to the bail out.
I understand Capitalism. I understand what the freedom to fail is all about. What I don't understand are:
1) The unfair tax laws that give enormous loopholes to "hide" income,as well as the uneven tax percentages that put the burden on the lower earners.
2) The Stalinist tactics being used against those that say: 'Hey! Wait a minute! What are you doing with MY money?"
And, to address the specifics of Herman Cain's statement about how the unemployed have only themselves to blame:
One individual that spent the requisite years learning a trade, in say, commercial architecture, works for a few profitable years, when suddenly, the bottom drops out of the market.
New construction nearly halts, renovation is put off until the consumer spending can support it, and the company he is with can't get enough work to support itself.
Job goes poof.
The market doesn't change just because he changes employers.
To add insult to injury, there are several other companies in the same situation as his former employer.
Now all of THOSE employees are competing for the rather small number of jobs left.
So, the market failure is his fault, according to Cain, and so is the fact that he isn't related to, or friends with someone that IS hiring to fill a VERY limited number of positions.
And, then we have those that say: "You have to take anything, in today's economy" while true to an extent, there are certain factors that mitigate:
The money is no longer available to re-train for another field, either from personal savings, or State sponsored programs.
There are only so many hours in a week, and most jobs only let you work for a certain number of them. (Legal restrictions put in place to protect the worker...)
The jobs available without retraining pay far far less than what was earned before, requiring in some cases, a 120 hour work week in order to meet the financial obligations that have either not changed, or gotten more onerous.
(Examples: States have increased the fees for many licenses and registrations. Gasoline prices have increased more than 2 fold in the last 10 years. And for you foodies, the cost of bacon has gone from 2.99 per pound to 5.99 for the same 15 slices in less than a year. For those with children, clothing and all child rearing costs have increased.{Current average "out of pocket" cost of raising ONE child from birth to age 18 is $250,000. That is the AVERAGE from ALL economic profiles, across the United States.})
It is, unfortunately, all too typical of the GOP to take this stance.
Despite the fact that a great preponderance of its constituents are poor, undereducated, and emotionally/religiously/sexually conservative, the "party" line is "blame yourself for the things done by those we told you could be trusted." It's never, ever, ever "We told you that you could trust them. It's our fault." Nor is it "They abused our collective trust, and will be held accountable for what they did."
I've encountered similar attitudes in many people who are what was once called "Born Again" Christians. If Something Good happens to you, God did it. If Something Bad happens to you, it's your fault.
"I bought a house for $???,???, and then my mortgage was sold to another institution, the interest rate went up, costing me more, while my pay rate went down to help preserve the company I work for. Then the Mortgage Collapse happened. Now my house is only worth less than half what it was when I bought it, but the mortgage value remains the same. That must be my fault. I must have sinned, somehow..."
While this might make sense to some, its just not the way the real world works.
Its "magical" thinking. The same thinking that blames fairies for sour milk, and gremlins for mechanical failures.
I could go on for pages and pages, but I have to draw this to a close somewhere... Here's as good a place as any.
A fairly narrow-minded point of view, that demonstrates one of two things:
1) The speaker has a a very limited understanding of how things got this way, or:
2) It's an attempt at demagoguery, assuming the listeners will swallow this sound-bite, and spew it back, without a clear understanding of its meaning and background.
I have seen both things, sometimes in the same utterance, by all of the GOP hopefuls.
It is particularly frustrating for me because when all the recent "banking" issues hit the fan, (mortgage crisis, pension crisis, banking crisis) these people seem to want to blame the little guy with the bank account and the mortgage and the pension, rather than the Wall Street-ers who were entrusted with the ethical and legal handling of them.
Is it my fault that BoA needed a bail out? If not, then why were MY tax dollars used for it? Since I pay more per year in taxes than ALL of the BoA board of directors combined, I can safely say they contributed very little to the bail out.
I understand Capitalism. I understand what the freedom to fail is all about. What I don't understand are:
1) The unfair tax laws that give enormous loopholes to "hide" income,as well as the uneven tax percentages that put the burden on the lower earners.
2) The Stalinist tactics being used against those that say: 'Hey! Wait a minute! What are you doing with MY money?"
And, to address the specifics of Herman Cain's statement about how the unemployed have only themselves to blame:
One individual that spent the requisite years learning a trade, in say, commercial architecture, works for a few profitable years, when suddenly, the bottom drops out of the market.
New construction nearly halts, renovation is put off until the consumer spending can support it, and the company he is with can't get enough work to support itself.
Job goes poof.
The market doesn't change just because he changes employers.
To add insult to injury, there are several other companies in the same situation as his former employer.
Now all of THOSE employees are competing for the rather small number of jobs left.
So, the market failure is his fault, according to Cain, and so is the fact that he isn't related to, or friends with someone that IS hiring to fill a VERY limited number of positions.
And, then we have those that say: "You have to take anything, in today's economy" while true to an extent, there are certain factors that mitigate:
The money is no longer available to re-train for another field, either from personal savings, or State sponsored programs.
There are only so many hours in a week, and most jobs only let you work for a certain number of them. (Legal restrictions put in place to protect the worker...)
The jobs available without retraining pay far far less than what was earned before, requiring in some cases, a 120 hour work week in order to meet the financial obligations that have either not changed, or gotten more onerous.
(Examples: States have increased the fees for many licenses and registrations. Gasoline prices have increased more than 2 fold in the last 10 years. And for you foodies, the cost of bacon has gone from 2.99 per pound to 5.99 for the same 15 slices in less than a year. For those with children, clothing and all child rearing costs have increased.{Current average "out of pocket" cost of raising ONE child from birth to age 18 is $250,000. That is the AVERAGE from ALL economic profiles, across the United States.})
It is, unfortunately, all too typical of the GOP to take this stance.
Despite the fact that a great preponderance of its constituents are poor, undereducated, and emotionally/religiously/sexually conservative, the "party" line is "blame yourself for the things done by those we told you could be trusted." It's never, ever, ever "We told you that you could trust them. It's our fault." Nor is it "They abused our collective trust, and will be held accountable for what they did."
I've encountered similar attitudes in many people who are what was once called "Born Again" Christians. If Something Good happens to you, God did it. If Something Bad happens to you, it's your fault.
"I bought a house for $???,???, and then my mortgage was sold to another institution, the interest rate went up, costing me more, while my pay rate went down to help preserve the company I work for. Then the Mortgage Collapse happened. Now my house is only worth less than half what it was when I bought it, but the mortgage value remains the same. That must be my fault. I must have sinned, somehow..."
While this might make sense to some, its just not the way the real world works.
Its "magical" thinking. The same thinking that blames fairies for sour milk, and gremlins for mechanical failures.
I could go on for pages and pages, but I have to draw this to a close somewhere... Here's as good a place as any.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Oh, crap... I hope they don't do this.
NOW, I'm worried.
Via Dangerous Minds: Operation Invade Wall Street: ‘Anonymous’ is that really you?
If this goes down in either of the ways the post implies, then we are all just plain screwed.
On the one hand, there's the video, telling people where to get tools to help, and on the other, there's a broadcast posting from other people claiming to be Anonymous telling people that it's a Government trap.
Like the O.P. says: Keep your wits about you.
Via Dangerous Minds: Operation Invade Wall Street: ‘Anonymous’ is that really you?
If this goes down in either of the ways the post implies, then we are all just plain screwed.
On the one hand, there's the video, telling people where to get tools to help, and on the other, there's a broadcast posting from other people claiming to be Anonymous telling people that it's a Government trap.
Like the O.P. says: Keep your wits about you.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Faux News Redeux
Here's a link to a Fox News interview with one of the OccupyWallSt protesters.
Dangerous Minds: The FOX News Occupy Wall St footage you’ll never see on FOX News
There's really nothing I can add to what is already written on the page. Enjoy.
Dangerous Minds: The FOX News Occupy Wall St footage you’ll never see on FOX News
There's really nothing I can add to what is already written on the page. Enjoy.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Why are they called "Red States"?
Back when I was a youngun' there was this thing known as The Red Menace. Not Darth Maul, or Jagger with Redbull.
It was the Communist Menace. The U.S. sent soldiers to a bunch of places, and only called two of them a Wars, in an effort to stem the tide of Communism throughout the world.
Let me address some common misconceptions about Communism.
*WARNING* The following is 9th grade Political Science/Western Civ. stuff.
You see, there are several KINDS of communism. Karl Marx wrote a bunch of words, trying to indicate what he thought would make a cool way for a nation and it's people to conduct day to day business. It was sort of pie in the sky Utopian-ism, but you can't blame a guy for trying. It was actually pretty well thought out, and might have worked.
It was supposed to be that everyone had a skill, of one sort or another. Milking cows. Running farm equipment. Keeping track of shipping logistics. Shooting straight. Being entertaining.
At some point, someone would need your skill. Rather than paying money, they would contribute their skill to the pool, just like you had. Everybody was able to draw from the pool, at need. Either drawing the skill itself, or the product of that skill. (mostly the product, but the principle remains.) You get an entire nation doing this, and not succumbing to greed, taking more than they need, and it would be a pretty nice place.
But, like with the lessons taught in the Bible, actual people got involved, and screwed the whole thing up.
You see, people somehow came to power after the revolution, and, being people with desires and hungers and vices, decided that the communist principles didn't apply to them, and they could have wealth and power and mansions, and castles, and booze, and food, and swanky cars, and, and, and... They justified this by saying that they kept things running. Made the tough calls. They deserved the perks.
Now, the people a little lower on the ladder of power saw this, and decided to grab a little for themselves. And so on, and so on. Until, one day (not that long after, actually) Marx's ideals were used as an excuse for a tyrannical government. A really large number of the populace worked and lived in subhuman conditions and abject poverty to produced things, labor, and profit for the benefit of a really small number of the populace.
And then there were the politicians. Usually appointed. Policy and the winners of government contracts were decided not by what was best for the people, or even by the people. They were decided by who could lobby/influence the official the most.
The general populace were not very well educated. Very well indoctrinated, but not well educated. Even some of the lower level functionaries fell into this category. Not too bright, but knew how to play the game.
(Starting to sound more familiar?)
It was several decades later that the effects of McCarthyism wore off in the U.S. and some of those people that could form independent thought realized that the USSR wasn't really a communist state, but still insisted on calling itself such. It was a flat out tyranny, with the principles of communism imposed on the worker, for the benefit of the elite. Seriously. Labor camps, and "re-education" (pronounced "torture") for those that didn't see things the way the government and the media thought they should. Any protests were met with violence, and the protesters arrested.
(*cough* OccupyWallSt *cough*)
From where I sit, that's a fairly good description of Stalinist Communism.
Is any of this sounding like something *you* experience?
Now. Let's make some observations about the traditionally republican states here in the U.S.
Often times, the majority of the population is under educated, and living well below what could be called Middle Class. Blue Collar workers for the most part. The Stereotype has them living in doublewide mobile homes, or shacks in the hills. Obviously not the case with most, but stereotypes do not grow out of a vacuum. (NASCAR and WWE, don't help...)
They tend to support "traditional" values, and don't like changes that they see as harmful. Keep the Status Quo. They use religion to support out dated ideas, and often quote demagogues as gospel, without being able to rationalize, or even adequately explain what they have just quoted.
They also support corporations indirectly, by voting the "party line"
They support, by voting, the greed and proclivities of the "elite", without acknowledging them.
Now, by supporting, by popular vote, the corporations, and the politicians that allow them to run rampant over the economy, they are supporting the growth of Stalinist Communism here, in these United States.
Now we have Red States.
Do your homework. Study the trends. Don't rely on discredited sources (*cough* Fox News *cough*), and most importantly, think your own thoughts. Be a responsible voter by not being a sheep.
A good citizen is an educated voter.
It was the Communist Menace. The U.S. sent soldiers to a bunch of places, and only called two of them a Wars, in an effort to stem the tide of Communism throughout the world.
Let me address some common misconceptions about Communism.
*WARNING* The following is 9th grade Political Science/Western Civ. stuff.
You see, there are several KINDS of communism. Karl Marx wrote a bunch of words, trying to indicate what he thought would make a cool way for a nation and it's people to conduct day to day business. It was sort of pie in the sky Utopian-ism, but you can't blame a guy for trying. It was actually pretty well thought out, and might have worked.
It was supposed to be that everyone had a skill, of one sort or another. Milking cows. Running farm equipment. Keeping track of shipping logistics. Shooting straight. Being entertaining.
At some point, someone would need your skill. Rather than paying money, they would contribute their skill to the pool, just like you had. Everybody was able to draw from the pool, at need. Either drawing the skill itself, or the product of that skill. (mostly the product, but the principle remains.) You get an entire nation doing this, and not succumbing to greed, taking more than they need, and it would be a pretty nice place.
But, like with the lessons taught in the Bible, actual people got involved, and screwed the whole thing up.
You see, people somehow came to power after the revolution, and, being people with desires and hungers and vices, decided that the communist principles didn't apply to them, and they could have wealth and power and mansions, and castles, and booze, and food, and swanky cars, and, and, and... They justified this by saying that they kept things running. Made the tough calls. They deserved the perks.
Now, the people a little lower on the ladder of power saw this, and decided to grab a little for themselves. And so on, and so on. Until, one day (not that long after, actually) Marx's ideals were used as an excuse for a tyrannical government. A really large number of the populace worked and lived in subhuman conditions and abject poverty to produced things, labor, and profit for the benefit of a really small number of the populace.
And then there were the politicians. Usually appointed. Policy and the winners of government contracts were decided not by what was best for the people, or even by the people. They were decided by who could lobby/influence the official the most.
The general populace were not very well educated. Very well indoctrinated, but not well educated. Even some of the lower level functionaries fell into this category. Not too bright, but knew how to play the game.
(Starting to sound more familiar?)
It was several decades later that the effects of McCarthyism wore off in the U.S. and some of those people that could form independent thought realized that the USSR wasn't really a communist state, but still insisted on calling itself such. It was a flat out tyranny, with the principles of communism imposed on the worker, for the benefit of the elite. Seriously. Labor camps, and "re-education" (pronounced "torture") for those that didn't see things the way the government and the media thought they should. Any protests were met with violence, and the protesters arrested.
(*cough* OccupyWallSt *cough*)
From where I sit, that's a fairly good description of Stalinist Communism.
Is any of this sounding like something *you* experience?
Now. Let's make some observations about the traditionally republican states here in the U.S.
Often times, the majority of the population is under educated, and living well below what could be called Middle Class. Blue Collar workers for the most part. The Stereotype has them living in doublewide mobile homes, or shacks in the hills. Obviously not the case with most, but stereotypes do not grow out of a vacuum. (NASCAR and WWE, don't help...)
They tend to support "traditional" values, and don't like changes that they see as harmful. Keep the Status Quo. They use religion to support out dated ideas, and often quote demagogues as gospel, without being able to rationalize, or even adequately explain what they have just quoted.
They also support corporations indirectly, by voting the "party line"
They support, by voting, the greed and proclivities of the "elite", without acknowledging them.
Now, by supporting, by popular vote, the corporations, and the politicians that allow them to run rampant over the economy, they are supporting the growth of Stalinist Communism here, in these United States.
Now we have Red States.
Do your homework. Study the trends. Don't rely on discredited sources (*cough* Fox News *cough*), and most importantly, think your own thoughts. Be a responsible voter by not being a sheep.
A good citizen is an educated voter.
Now, let's look at "Entitlement"
Recently, I've been hearing a lot of buzz about entitlements. And by recently, I mean over the last few years.
I know the Red voters are referring to things like Welfare, and Unemployment payments, which is actually paid into by workers, and food stamps, and so on, but I would like to address the entitlements that they ignore.
Corporate tax breaks. These tax breaks are given to companies in order to entice them to build facilities in certain places, or not move away, or some other thing the government would like them to do, or not do.
The tax breaks are not one shot deals, either. They are ongoing, and in some cases, a part of the tax laws.
Some of these breaks have been in place for so long, they out date the oldest living resident of that particular area. So long, that the companies in question don't see them as incentives anymore, but as rights.
I know the Red voters are referring to things like Welfare, and Unemployment payments, which is actually paid into by workers, and food stamps, and so on, but I would like to address the entitlements that they ignore.
Corporate tax breaks. These tax breaks are given to companies in order to entice them to build facilities in certain places, or not move away, or some other thing the government would like them to do, or not do.
The tax breaks are not one shot deals, either. They are ongoing, and in some cases, a part of the tax laws.
Some of these breaks have been in place for so long, they out date the oldest living resident of that particular area. So long, that the companies in question don't see them as incentives anymore, but as rights.
First Aid Kits & Fire Extinguishers...
For most Americans, there are only three reasons to call Emergency Services 911:
A medical emergency
A fire
A crime
Either recently discovered/survived, or in progress.
Now, as an American (Pronounced "Wal-Mart Customer"), I have several options to help allay some of the immediate effects of two of these issues: A well stocked first aid kit, and a fire extinguisher being among those options.
I keep these with me, by way of having multiples in the house, and a set of each in the car. I even carry some adhesive bandages in my wallet. (Boy Scout training, rearing it's head, again!) And I know how to use a fire extinguisher of any sort.
Now, lets face it, folks. The Fire Department/EMS will be storming up your front steps in under 5 minutes (or at least that's the estimated/published response time around these parts. I've seen them beat that time. A lot.)
The Police, on the other hand...
In fact, once, I had an act of violence perpetrated upon me, in my own home, by a person who was neither invited, nor welcome, but still thought they had some right to be there.
I called the police, then ordered a pizza for my children, whose supper had been destroyed.
The pizza got there first...
In America, we have a document that people reference a whole heck of a lot when they want to rant about this or that, or, pray to a Deity of one sort or another, or keep from incriminating themselves during a criminal investigation, etc.
You guessed it. The Constitution. A document of some importance, right? A Founding Document, right? A Document that has been the whole of the reason for some of the wars we've fought in, as a nation, right? We've even fought in wars in order to let OTHER nations have the same sort of thing, right?
Right? (There's a pun there. Really. There is. As well as some serious foreshadowing.)
There is one particular part of that document that seems to be pretty contentious these days: The Second Amendment.
For those that can't be bothered to either remember it, or look it up, here it is, in its entirety, as originally written, as passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the individual States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are those that believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't apply in today's American Society. And that there are certain aspects of the *inherent implications* of the second amendment that don't apply anymore, through the fault of a government that listens to lobbyists, rather than actual voters.
We'll cover those at a later date. Remind me, would you?
Today, we'll look at how an armed society could be likened to keeping band-aides in your wallet, or a fire extinguisher in your trunk/kitchen.
Recently, there have been some pretty horrific things happening in the world when either criminals, or mentally unstable persons get a hold of a gun, and use it with criminal, or mentally unstable intent.
Some of these events may not be all THAT recent, but they are so horrific that they have made it into the lexicon: Columbine. Virginia Tech. The Norwegian Youth Camp shootings.
These are just some of the most famous/infamous.
These... Events? Tragedies? They have some things in common.
The biggest thing they have in common, to my mind, is that none of the victims, nor the people responsible for the care and safety of the victims, were in a position, nor equipped, to provide ANY resistance to the threats.
None. What. So. Ever.
Another, rather significant thing they have in common is that Emergency Response arrived either too late, in the case of the Norway shootings, or in a mode of operation that kept the well armed responders well away from any of the gun fire, as in the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres. (It *was* "To Protect and Serve", right? Right?) The death tolls rose, and rose into the double, and triple digits.
What was the mentality? What was the rationale for not going in, and stopping the killing?
Don't mistake my intent, here. I will always honor and respect the police and fire that gave their lives on the off chance of saving a life or two during the 9/11 attacks. That is true heroism. But, often ignored are the citizens who did the same. There were only a handful of them, as First Responders tried to usher all citizens to safety, but there were some.
But what kept the police from being effective in the prevention of further deaths in the previously mentioned attacks on children? Lack of intel? What?
Now, in a lot of states here in the U.S., in order to carry a weapon, you need to show proficiency. This is in order to prove that you can be trusted to not hit a bystander due to lack of ability. This is also, a Good Thing.
Imagine, for a moment, please, that the people responsible for the care and safety of the young victims of these shootings had, in fact, been armed, and had been able to respond "in kind" to the threat. How many children in Norway could have been saved? How many students at Columbine, or Virginia Tech could have been saved?
Would the Attackers have even begun the atrocities, knowing that the law allowed for an immediate armed response by almost anyone?
How many of these schools and campgrounds had fire extinguishers? Emergency Defibrillator Kits? First Aid stations?
My Town's elementary schools (grades K-6) have the defibrillators every 50 feet in the hallways. As well as a Nurse's Office, with enough equipment and supplies to deal with more than just basic first aid.
Why is it so hard, then, in my state of residence, (and harder in others) to acquire a permit to carry a firearm? (The local police refer applicants to the Attorney General's office, which then requires them to take a Psych Eval exam at a particular local university, to be paid for by the applicant. Oh, and the university no longer offers the exam. Effectively making it impossible for anyone that does not have employment that requires a firearm to get a permit to carry, despite the written laws to the contrary.)
(several lawsuits are pending, but the court systems being what they are, and judges having more important cases to try... Cases that if delayed, would infringe on the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant...)
While I agree that a gun can certainly cause a lot more damage than a bandage, it must be pointed out that, in the right hands, so can a fire extinguisher.
But, in the hands of a citizen trained, and prepared to be effective, a gun can save lives. Before the Authorities can even be made aware of the situation.
As both a Cub, and Boy Scout, I got yearly training and testing in firearms "care and feeding". Constant refreshers, just like we got in First Aid, and Basic Firefighting. The older we got, the more detailed, and expansive the training got, up to, and including qualifying for and receiving a Hunter's Safety Certificate, or "Orange Card". The State issued document that confirms that you have shown sufficient proficiency, and knowledge in firearms and hunter's safety to get a Hunting License every year, as well as having had sufficient training to be allowed to purchase a handgun in this State, if the card was acquired prior to 1981, and you were 21 or older at the time of purchase. After 1980, a separate "Blue Card" must be presented at the Gun Shop. It's the same course of training, but, still...
It wasn't until I was 16 that we got to actually handle a firearm in a "weapon's hot" situation. The local Police Firing Range. Boy Scouts. Good Times.
Mind you, my Grandad, and his nephews, thought it was great fun to take the Little Guy of 8 out plinking. Especially when I could Bullseye a tobacco can at 25 yards using the iron sights on a Remington bolt action .22 Sportster. (For those interested, it was a large can of Captain Black, Gold Blend.)
Then there were my days in Junior ROTC, and the Rifle Team. A short lived experiment in Intramural Sports for my school...
Suffice it to say that I have had experience. Lots of it. Ongoing, for many years. I can even take a firearm that has never been fired, and set it up so that the first shot will be "on paper". Not bad, for a "duffer", right?
But, since I choose to work in a certain field that I take great joy in, I am not allowed, by my state, to be able, and empowered, to defend myself, or others, from a mugging, or during a carjacking.
My state has the Castle Doctrine in effect, and case law shows that it applies even to my wallet. The one with the bandages. But it's sort of moot, unless I am at home, since only off duty police/prison guards, Private Investigators, and police Detectives are allowed to carry firearms outdoors while in civilian clothing.
Maybe. Just maybe, my stubborn desire for self-reliance is a "Down East" thing. Maybe I live in a place that would prefer to be "late to the dance" and do Janitor Duty, rather than have to do the paper work needed for a Citizen's Arrest...
Personal feelings on the topic aside, the facts can not be denied. In States and Nations that allow citizens to be armed, violent, invasive crimes are fewer, per capita. And, as trite as it may be to say; a criminal, with criminal intent, will be able to get, and has already gotten his hands on a firearm. No matter WHAT the laws are.
Do you suppose that carrying it concealed is that much different to a criminal?
I might be mistaken in this one basic premise: The Laws are supposed to protect the law abiding citizenry, and not give unfair advantage to those who consciously decide to ignore those laws.
I leave you with the following, intentionally provocative questions:
What's it to be, folks? Tie the tourniquet yourself, or just wait for the guys with the mops? Are we going to grab a garden hose, or just wait for the backhoe and dumpsters?
And now, perhaps the most important part of this post: Do Not function outside the laws. Do Not. If you disagree with a particular law, strive to change it. Do Not break it. Please.
NOTICE: The preceding post was inspired by the writings of Mas Ayoob Handgun Instructor to Private Citizens, and Law Enforcement, and 2nd Amendment Advocate.
A medical emergency
A fire
A crime
Either recently discovered/survived, or in progress.
Now, as an American (Pronounced "Wal-Mart Customer"), I have several options to help allay some of the immediate effects of two of these issues: A well stocked first aid kit, and a fire extinguisher being among those options.
I keep these with me, by way of having multiples in the house, and a set of each in the car. I even carry some adhesive bandages in my wallet. (Boy Scout training, rearing it's head, again!) And I know how to use a fire extinguisher of any sort.
Now, lets face it, folks. The Fire Department/EMS will be storming up your front steps in under 5 minutes (or at least that's the estimated/published response time around these parts. I've seen them beat that time. A lot.)
The Police, on the other hand...
In fact, once, I had an act of violence perpetrated upon me, in my own home, by a person who was neither invited, nor welcome, but still thought they had some right to be there.
I called the police, then ordered a pizza for my children, whose supper had been destroyed.
The pizza got there first...
In America, we have a document that people reference a whole heck of a lot when they want to rant about this or that, or, pray to a Deity of one sort or another, or keep from incriminating themselves during a criminal investigation, etc.
You guessed it. The Constitution. A document of some importance, right? A Founding Document, right? A Document that has been the whole of the reason for some of the wars we've fought in, as a nation, right? We've even fought in wars in order to let OTHER nations have the same sort of thing, right?
Right? (There's a pun there. Really. There is. As well as some serious foreshadowing.)
There is one particular part of that document that seems to be pretty contentious these days: The Second Amendment.
For those that can't be bothered to either remember it, or look it up, here it is, in its entirety, as originally written, as passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the individual States:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are those that believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't apply in today's American Society. And that there are certain aspects of the *inherent implications* of the second amendment that don't apply anymore, through the fault of a government that listens to lobbyists, rather than actual voters.
We'll cover those at a later date. Remind me, would you?
Today, we'll look at how an armed society could be likened to keeping band-aides in your wallet, or a fire extinguisher in your trunk/kitchen.
Recently, there have been some pretty horrific things happening in the world when either criminals, or mentally unstable persons get a hold of a gun, and use it with criminal, or mentally unstable intent.
Some of these events may not be all THAT recent, but they are so horrific that they have made it into the lexicon: Columbine. Virginia Tech. The Norwegian Youth Camp shootings.
These are just some of the most famous/infamous.
These... Events? Tragedies? They have some things in common.
The biggest thing they have in common, to my mind, is that none of the victims, nor the people responsible for the care and safety of the victims, were in a position, nor equipped, to provide ANY resistance to the threats.
None. What. So. Ever.
Another, rather significant thing they have in common is that Emergency Response arrived either too late, in the case of the Norway shootings, or in a mode of operation that kept the well armed responders well away from any of the gun fire, as in the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres. (It *was* "To Protect and Serve", right? Right?) The death tolls rose, and rose into the double, and triple digits.
What was the mentality? What was the rationale for not going in, and stopping the killing?
Don't mistake my intent, here. I will always honor and respect the police and fire that gave their lives on the off chance of saving a life or two during the 9/11 attacks. That is true heroism. But, often ignored are the citizens who did the same. There were only a handful of them, as First Responders tried to usher all citizens to safety, but there were some.
But what kept the police from being effective in the prevention of further deaths in the previously mentioned attacks on children? Lack of intel? What?
Now, in a lot of states here in the U.S., in order to carry a weapon, you need to show proficiency. This is in order to prove that you can be trusted to not hit a bystander due to lack of ability. This is also, a Good Thing.
Imagine, for a moment, please, that the people responsible for the care and safety of the young victims of these shootings had, in fact, been armed, and had been able to respond "in kind" to the threat. How many children in Norway could have been saved? How many students at Columbine, or Virginia Tech could have been saved?
Would the Attackers have even begun the atrocities, knowing that the law allowed for an immediate armed response by almost anyone?
How many of these schools and campgrounds had fire extinguishers? Emergency Defibrillator Kits? First Aid stations?
My Town's elementary schools (grades K-6) have the defibrillators every 50 feet in the hallways. As well as a Nurse's Office, with enough equipment and supplies to deal with more than just basic first aid.
Why is it so hard, then, in my state of residence, (and harder in others) to acquire a permit to carry a firearm? (The local police refer applicants to the Attorney General's office, which then requires them to take a Psych Eval exam at a particular local university, to be paid for by the applicant. Oh, and the university no longer offers the exam. Effectively making it impossible for anyone that does not have employment that requires a firearm to get a permit to carry, despite the written laws to the contrary.)
(several lawsuits are pending, but the court systems being what they are, and judges having more important cases to try... Cases that if delayed, would infringe on the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant...)
While I agree that a gun can certainly cause a lot more damage than a bandage, it must be pointed out that, in the right hands, so can a fire extinguisher.
But, in the hands of a citizen trained, and prepared to be effective, a gun can save lives. Before the Authorities can even be made aware of the situation.
As both a Cub, and Boy Scout, I got yearly training and testing in firearms "care and feeding". Constant refreshers, just like we got in First Aid, and Basic Firefighting. The older we got, the more detailed, and expansive the training got, up to, and including qualifying for and receiving a Hunter's Safety Certificate, or "Orange Card". The State issued document that confirms that you have shown sufficient proficiency, and knowledge in firearms and hunter's safety to get a Hunting License every year, as well as having had sufficient training to be allowed to purchase a handgun in this State, if the card was acquired prior to 1981, and you were 21 or older at the time of purchase. After 1980, a separate "Blue Card" must be presented at the Gun Shop. It's the same course of training, but, still...
It wasn't until I was 16 that we got to actually handle a firearm in a "weapon's hot" situation. The local Police Firing Range. Boy Scouts. Good Times.
Mind you, my Grandad, and his nephews, thought it was great fun to take the Little Guy of 8 out plinking. Especially when I could Bullseye a tobacco can at 25 yards using the iron sights on a Remington bolt action .22 Sportster. (For those interested, it was a large can of Captain Black, Gold Blend.)
Then there were my days in Junior ROTC, and the Rifle Team. A short lived experiment in Intramural Sports for my school...
Suffice it to say that I have had experience. Lots of it. Ongoing, for many years. I can even take a firearm that has never been fired, and set it up so that the first shot will be "on paper". Not bad, for a "duffer", right?
But, since I choose to work in a certain field that I take great joy in, I am not allowed, by my state, to be able, and empowered, to defend myself, or others, from a mugging, or during a carjacking.
My state has the Castle Doctrine in effect, and case law shows that it applies even to my wallet. The one with the bandages. But it's sort of moot, unless I am at home, since only off duty police/prison guards, Private Investigators, and police Detectives are allowed to carry firearms outdoors while in civilian clothing.
Maybe. Just maybe, my stubborn desire for self-reliance is a "Down East" thing. Maybe I live in a place that would prefer to be "late to the dance" and do Janitor Duty, rather than have to do the paper work needed for a Citizen's Arrest...
Personal feelings on the topic aside, the facts can not be denied. In States and Nations that allow citizens to be armed, violent, invasive crimes are fewer, per capita. And, as trite as it may be to say; a criminal, with criminal intent, will be able to get, and has already gotten his hands on a firearm. No matter WHAT the laws are.
Do you suppose that carrying it concealed is that much different to a criminal?
I might be mistaken in this one basic premise: The Laws are supposed to protect the law abiding citizenry, and not give unfair advantage to those who consciously decide to ignore those laws.
I leave you with the following, intentionally provocative questions:
What's it to be, folks? Tie the tourniquet yourself, or just wait for the guys with the mops? Are we going to grab a garden hose, or just wait for the backhoe and dumpsters?
And now, perhaps the most important part of this post: Do Not function outside the laws. Do Not. If you disagree with a particular law, strive to change it. Do Not break it. Please.
NOTICE: The preceding post was inspired by the writings of Mas Ayoob Handgun Instructor to Private Citizens, and Law Enforcement, and 2nd Amendment Advocate.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Occupy Wall Street, Part 2
This is kinda cool. Apparently, (heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, kinda thing. No confirmed sources.) several active duty and discharged veteran Marines are planing to go to Wall Street during Off Duty, dressed in the Class A uniform (the one that earned the nickname "Sea Going Bellhop". Much flashier than any other branch of the Armed Services. Maybe deservedly so...) to stand between the Law Enforcement Officers and the protestors, in an effort to protect the protestors.
The quote I read goes a little like this:
"I didn't fight for Wall St. I fought for America."
This kind of behavior, and the actions of these marines, are exactly the sort of thing that I was taught to believe was a part of the contract between the people and the government. I'm pretty sure it fell under the heading of Civic Duty, as the Cub, and Boy Scouts used to teach it.
The quote I read goes a little like this:
"I didn't fight for Wall St. I fought for America."
This kind of behavior, and the actions of these marines, are exactly the sort of thing that I was taught to believe was a part of the contract between the people and the government. I'm pretty sure it fell under the heading of Civic Duty, as the Cub, and Boy Scouts used to teach it.
Faux News
Here's a link to a video of one Megyn Kelly, of the Fox News program "Kelly's Court" wherein she implies that the female victims of "pepper spray", or mace, are being melodramatic...
Fox News Calls Pepper-Sprayed Female Protestors Over-Dramatic
At least she confesses to never having been pepper sprayed. If she ever had been, she would know, first hand, as I do, that these young women were being pretty restrained, all things considered.
DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any advertisements, or links posted on pages that I link to. These pages are "off site", and have no affiliation to this blog.
Fox News Calls Pepper-Sprayed Female Protestors Over-Dramatic
At least she confesses to never having been pepper sprayed. If she ever had been, she would know, first hand, as I do, that these young women were being pretty restrained, all things considered.
DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any advertisements, or links posted on pages that I link to. These pages are "off site", and have no affiliation to this blog.
Occupy Wall Street?
Here's a link to an article that I really enjoyed.
George Carlin on why we should occupy Wall Street
There's a video that's NSFW (Carlin. Language. I'm sure you can figure it out.)
DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any advertisements, or links posted on pages that I link to. These pages are "off site", and have no affiliation to this blog.
George Carlin on why we should occupy Wall Street
There's a video that's NSFW (Carlin. Language. I'm sure you can figure it out.)
DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any advertisements, or links posted on pages that I link to. These pages are "off site", and have no affiliation to this blog.
Down to business.
For the first few/several posts, I'm going to lift directly from posts I've made elsewhere. My apologies to those of you that have "heard it before" from me.
Having said that: Here we go.
Having said that: Here we go.
I have to confess, I'm a regular imbiber of liberal media, and every now and then I look in on the conservative media. From my observations, the news and opinions are presented much differently.
For example: Call in shows. Liberals are willing to actually take the time to hear the caller out, and attempt a civil discussion.
Conservatives yell at, and hang up on the liberal callers, and then mock them.
From what *I* remember from classes I took funded by, and taught by, the military (JROTC) these are classic examples of the differences between democracy and tyranny.
For example: Call in shows. Liberals are willing to actually take the time to hear the caller out, and attempt a civil discussion.
Conservatives yell at, and hang up on the liberal callers, and then mock them.
From what *I* remember from classes I took funded by, and taught by, the military (JROTC) these are classic examples of the differences between democracy and tyranny.
The biggest problem I can see, from my "armchair pulpit" is that there is no single individual to point a finger (or can of mace/tazer) at. No Bebe Doc Duvalier, no President For Life Marcos, no Pol Pot, no Hitler, no Kim Jong Il. If the Concrete Minds (all mixed up, and permanently set) of the Red State voters could actually take a minute and think, they would see that there's no possible way to put the blame in any single person's lap. Particularly our current POTUS.
And Another Thing! Ever wonder why the so called Red States don't put up more of a fuss about the appellation "Red" (Stalinist Communism. Not to be confused with either Leninist, or Marxist)?
And Another Thing! Ever wonder why the so called Red States don't put up more of a fuss about the appellation "Red" (Stalinist Communism. Not to be confused with either Leninist, or Marxist)?
Hello, everyone.
By way of introduction, I thought I would explain why I started this blog.
I am a male of 45+ years of age. I have been married (16 years), and divorced (8 months) and have children that mean the world to me. That leads me to be concerned about what the world will be like when they try to have families of their own.
I also have a background, and some training in:Critical Thinking, martial arts, Military Tactics/Navigation/History, with a some Officer/Leadership training. Also, I have been a gun owner, for target shooting, not hunting, for the last 30 years. I've earned a living in both the White, and Blue Collar world, and have taken some amazing experiences away from them, and learned some amazing things.
After having some amazing conversations, as well as heated discussions, on some popular Social Media websites, it occurred to me that some of the things I was saying, and observations I was making, did not appear anywhere else that I had exposure to. (emphasis on *some* of the things I was saying, and modifier "that I was exposed to".)
Other things I was saying seemed to jibe with other opinions and reports, giving me the feeling that I wasn't the only one that had these thoughts.
I plan to bring some of those ideas here, and share links and images that I find fit with my mode of thought.
I hope you can join in, no matter what your opinion of my thoughts. Please, bring your own, and share them with the rest of us.
Thanks for tuning in.
NOTICE: This Blog DOES NOT have an Adult Content Warning, so keep your comments and postings clean, and free from vulgarity.If you can't keep yourself from doing that, I reserve the right to either edit your comment/post, or delete it entirely.
If you don't already know the biggest rule of debate, I shall explain: You are welcome to attack the IDEAS, but NOT the PERSON. Same response as vulgarity. Edit or delete, with extreme prejudice.
Also, I have monetized this blog, so that you will see adverts in the sidebar. (I think I get $0.03 for every hundred views... Or maybe that's per thousand views...) If you see an advertisement that could be construed as obscene, (nudity, vulgarity, etc You know, Porn.) let me know right away, and I will deal with it as quickly as I can. I will not respond to claims of obscenity when they are applied to "normal" commercial, political, or even religious advertisements. I have little or no control over the ads, but I know I can petition Google to block certain "commercial entities"
By way of introduction, I thought I would explain why I started this blog.
I am a male of 45+ years of age. I have been married (16 years), and divorced (8 months) and have children that mean the world to me. That leads me to be concerned about what the world will be like when they try to have families of their own.
I also have a background, and some training in:Critical Thinking, martial arts, Military Tactics/Navigation/History, with a some Officer/Leadership training. Also, I have been a gun owner, for target shooting, not hunting, for the last 30 years. I've earned a living in both the White, and Blue Collar world, and have taken some amazing experiences away from them, and learned some amazing things.
After having some amazing conversations, as well as heated discussions, on some popular Social Media websites, it occurred to me that some of the things I was saying, and observations I was making, did not appear anywhere else that I had exposure to. (emphasis on *some* of the things I was saying, and modifier "that I was exposed to".)
Other things I was saying seemed to jibe with other opinions and reports, giving me the feeling that I wasn't the only one that had these thoughts.
I plan to bring some of those ideas here, and share links and images that I find fit with my mode of thought.
I hope you can join in, no matter what your opinion of my thoughts. Please, bring your own, and share them with the rest of us.
Thanks for tuning in.
NOTICE: This Blog DOES NOT have an Adult Content Warning, so keep your comments and postings clean, and free from vulgarity.If you can't keep yourself from doing that, I reserve the right to either edit your comment/post, or delete it entirely.
If you don't already know the biggest rule of debate, I shall explain: You are welcome to attack the IDEAS, but NOT the PERSON. Same response as vulgarity. Edit or delete, with extreme prejudice.
Also, I have monetized this blog, so that you will see adverts in the sidebar. (I think I get $0.03 for every hundred views... Or maybe that's per thousand views...) If you see an advertisement that could be construed as obscene, (nudity, vulgarity, etc You know, Porn.) let me know right away, and I will deal with it as quickly as I can. I will not respond to claims of obscenity when they are applied to "normal" commercial, political, or even religious advertisements. I have little or no control over the ads, but I know I can petition Google to block certain "commercial entities"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)