Recent events (the election, Sandy Hook, drone strikes on American citizens, gay rights votes) have created a lot of debate on a variety of topics centered on the government of this country and the people to whom that government belongs. These debates have been polarizing to say the least, and have uncovered something, an underlying problem that I personally find more disturbing than the problems that brought it to light in the first place. Patriotism has, somewhere along the way, become a bad word to an alarming number of people.
When I was a kid, growing up, as far back as I can remember, we said the Pledge of Allegiance in school at the start of the day. We all stood up, we all held our hands over our hearts, and we were all proud to be part of the best country on earth, bar none. Our parents didn't call the school and try to excuse us from this activity, rather, most would make sure that their children, at a young age, could recite the Pledge without falter so they could join in at school.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It varies from state to state, but with roughly 200 days in a school year, and 12 years of school, I recited this pledge at least 2400 times in my life before I even turned 18. My father was a United States Marine, a fact of which I have always been proud. My grandfather was a WWII Navy veteran, of which I am also proud. When I see an American flag waving in a breeze, I feel pride, and there's nothing wrong with that. Note the words of the pledge. We did not pledge allegiance to the president, or the congressmen, or SCOTUS. We pledged our allegiance to the flag, and what it represents, and to this very day, I still consider that pledge to be very meaningful.
I've heard, or even talked to, people who think being patriotic is somehow funny. It becomes the butt of jokes about rednecks, their guns, and "Merka!" and I am constantly reminding myself not to 1. tell someone to Fuck Off and & 2. punch someone in the face. The 1st Amendment is protection of freedom of speech from government, not personal, repercussion.
The media and politicians have warped our nations values, and no, I'm not talking about religious values. You don't have to be Christian to be moral and have good values. Sorry to break the news to you, but there are an awful lot of Muslims, Jews and yes, even atheists, out there who have good values and a functioning moral compass. By making it somehow a bad thing to be a patriot, they've stripped people of that foundation upon which American values are built.The sheep are everywhere and it's depressing. Of course, conservative republicans are going to immediately say I'm referring to liberals. Well, I'm talking to you too.
As a patriot of this country, I believe in equality for all citizens. I believe wholeheartedly in the rights granted us by the Constitution. I believe in things like innocent before proven guilty. As our government slowly strips those rights away from us, I stand amazed at the number of people who seem not to care. The Patriot Act is one, long, massive violation of our constitutional rights as Americans, and the conservative republicans could care less because it was a Bush policy so it's OK (if a Democratic president had put forth the same thing, they'd have had a shit fit). They think as long as it doesn't affect me, and they keep using it to catch bad people, I'm OK with that. Well, I'm not. Infringement on our rights, ANY citizens rights, is a bad thing. Our second amendment rights are next on the chopping block. Now it's the liberal democrats who are "OK" with it. They don't have any guns in their house, so who cares. If the crazy rednecks can't have their machine guns anymore, I'm all for banning assault weapons! Wrong answer.
People need to stop and think. The Patriot Act gave the government the right to snoop on you at any time, and the only lame excuse they need is to BELIEVE you're a terrorist. Of course, this includes domestic terrorists, so don't think because you're white and christian you're excluded. It also gave them the right to detain you without trial, indefinitely. With one swish of the pen, the Patriot Act stripped American citizens of their 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights and they cheered like sheep. But still, the populace is armed, and an armed populace, even one who has given their rights up without realizing it, will not relinquish those rights so easily when their turn comes.
Now the government is coming after "assault weapons". Well of course they are you say, they're dangerous, no one needs to hunt deer with a semi automatic rifle in a common military caliber!
So, hunting deer with a black semi-automatic rifle in 5.56 is bad. But hunting one with a brown semi automatic in .308 is OK? Um, I have news for you...
Jarred Lautner used a handgun. The initial reports indicated Adam Lanza left his scary black assault rifle in the trunk, and the coroners report has confirmed that he only used handguns, but politicians continue to use it as a soapbox for an assault weapons ban and Piers Morgan continues to rave about how Adam Lanza used one of these deadly assault rifles (Fucker, I've got news for you, being on the wrong end of ANY gun is deadly). Of the roughly 12,000 homicides in this country last year, approximately half were by handgun, while only about 2% were with a rifle of any kind. Why aren't politicians trying to ban handguns? I've talked to some pretty dense people on the subject of gun control, but make no mistake, politicians are NOT stupid, no matter how much they may appear so. It doesn't even require common sense to be able to look at statistics and facts, which clearly prove that "assault rifles" are not a danger to the populace, not nearly as much so as handguns (in the hands of criminals and irresponsible citizens, not in mine, and if you come to take mine, you'll find the only person they're a danger to, is you) Therefore, there is only one logical reason that they want assault rifles out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
There are 100 million gun owners in this country who own over 300 million guns. But in the end, if they decide to come take the rest of your rights away, or if we decide that we've had enough of them ruining our country, they know that a mob armed with handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles doesn't stand a chance, but a militia armed with semi-automatic rifles would represent the end of their reign. The only reason for taking these rifles away from you, is so that you can't fight back when they take the rest of your rights.
I'm not paranoid, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if you think for one minute that you can demonstrate FACTS as to why the government would want to enact and enforce an assault weapons ban, I'm all ears. But don't be an idiot and say "they're dangerous" or "there's no reason you need them" I can tell you half a dozen reasons I need one, you can't tell me one real reason why I don't.
And it all boils down to Patriotism. Patriotism is what will make people stand up and tell our government, you can't have our guns, you can't take our rights, and if you try to take either one, the only thing you'll get is a funeral. By stripping that away, or by making it somehow taboo to be a patriot and to love your country, the media and politicians have pacified half the population without even trying.
If you've ever read the Bill of Rights and then followed it up by looking at some of the documents commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, you know it was written by patriots. People who were patriotic about a country that didn't even officially exist yet. But they had a vision for it, and it existed in their minds and in their hearts. This might seem to some like a second amendment rights rant, and in a way, I suppose it might be. But there is a reason for it. There is no speculation, it is very clear that the Founders intended for the second amendment to be used, by patriots, in defense of the other 9. We say that such a day when it is needed will never come. But they had already experienced that day. When their country had stripped their rights away, leaving them with no choice but to be slaves, or to fight for the rights they believed in.
In relative terms, our country is very young. barely over 200 years old, when most european countries, in some way shape or form, have been around for twice as long or more. Many asian countries have have unchanged borders for millennium. We've come a very long way in those 236 years, and we got to this point because of patriots. When we went to war in WWI and WWII, we weren't defending the USA, at no point was the mainland of our country truly threatened. Yet hundreds of thousands of patriots volunteered to go to war because what was being threatened was a way of life. And now we've taken that for granted. This is it, the last barrier. Once they've taken away our only means of defending ourselves from the government, they can take anything else they want at will. They've made us fat, content and just happy enough to consider it someone else's problem. Half this country suffers from "that can't happen to me" syndrome. Call me paranoid, call me whatever you want, but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that if you can't think something can't happen to you, it almost certainly can, and quite frequently will.
So educate yourself. The next time you hear Feinstein or Obama talking about gun violence and assault weapons, go to the library, go online (there are still reliable sources of information online, it's not all facebook, porn and lies) or ask someone you know personally that knows about guns about the facts. Read the constitution, read the federalist papers. Go to a gun range and find out for yourself why millions of Americans find it as enjoyable a hobby as bowling or tennis -but please, if you've never handled a gun, go with someone responsible and safe, or take a gun safety course first, I've personally taught multiple people how to safely handle firearms, and all of them have enjoyed target shooting, they're all alive and uninjured, and to my knowledge, they all still own firearms-
But, if you blindly eat up all the BS they feed you:
Dangerous weapons intended for military purposes. (really? if we gave semi-automatic rifles to our military, they'd be slaughtered in actual combat)
Capable of shooting down airplanes and blowing up trains (TY Rev Jackson, I always knew you were a racist, but I had no idea you were such an incredible dumbass too)
That somehow adding a rail to a rifle and painting it black makes it a "dangerous assault weapon" vs a hunting rifle. (sure, and adding neon lights and a giant spoiler to my wife's car will make a it a "tuner")
That somehow, the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to rifles unless they are hunting rifles. (anyone who can think for themselves can clearly discover that hunting was the furthest thing from their minds when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment)
In the end I went off on a tangent, but the fact remains, somehow we've become a nation where being patriotic is a bad thing. It's frowned upon. It makes you an unsophisticated hillbilly/redneck with no education and an alcohol problem (funny thing though, drinking a bottle of wine a day or a bottle of expensive tequila every weekend doesn't make you an alcoholic as long as you're drinking it in an expensive house, but drinking a couple beers a once or twice a week after a hard day at work means you've got a problem, but I digress...). Funny thing is though, when they come to take the rest of your rights away, it's going to be a "Patriot" with a gun that stands up for those rights. Or maybe we won't. Maybe when the dust settles, we'll send you somewhere you can settle happily with a whole country with little to no national pride. Maybe Canada. You'll fit in there. We'll keep our Bill of Rights here.
So here I am. I'm patriotic about my country. I love the United States of America. I love what it stands for. The Democrats and the Republicans just want to slowly divide it up into their own private little baronies overseen by the king. They want you to be a serf. They want their rich friends to stay rich so they can continue to suck that teat and live the high life, while they keep you on the low. They want to rape you with taxes that leave you with just enough money to scrape by so that the only thing you care about is working hard enough to have a few nice things, and to care about those things enough that rising up against them would never be an option, because it would threaten the bubble in which you've lived your life. I believe that a time is coming soon when we're going to find out who the patriots are and who they aren't. Which side of that line are you going to be standing on?
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Obamacare, Extreme religious conservatism, misconceptions and lies; or, “The Sad State of Modern American Politics”
So something has been bugging me lately and I just couldn’t hold it in anymore. I thought about using it as fodder for a couple of Facebook statuses, before realizing that there was no way I could completely express myself in such a limited space. So I brought it here. So without further ado, on with the blog.
Now, in a system of socialized medicine, the government uses public funds (i.e. taxes) to provide the public with health care, the quality of which varies widely from country to country, but is universally superior to third world countries, and generally (but not always) substandard in comparison to industrialized nations with non-socialized medicine.
Obamacare doesn’t make free healthcare available to everyone, only the poor, so it is not socialized medicine, so get your heads out of your asses and stop calling it that, you sound ignorant. However, it does force everyone to have medical insurance. When a government tells you that you have to do something, not for purposes of public or national safety but simply because they said so, that’s Fascism, not Socialism. Sorry liberals, but it’s true. The government has quite literally, no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to force me to purchase anything, no matter how big or small. At the very least, this is a states rights issue. Lets examine the Tenth Amendment. This amendment is last on the Bill of Rights, but it was actually a key piece in the establishment of the Constitution and the formation of our nation. Its text is very simple, and is easily one of the least open to interpretation of all Amendments. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. This is not rocket science, but I’ll super simplify it. If it’s not covered in the constitution, it’s up to the individual states. Period. Now go get me a copy of the constitution where health insurance is mentioned in some fashion. Don’t talk to me about health care (you won’t find that in there either though), because that’s not really what the bill is about, it’s really about insurance, and I’ll be damned if the federal government has any right to tell me I HAVE to buy it, or they’ll levy a punishment against me. Honestly, I don’t even believe the state has the right to go that far. Now, the bill does make allowances/exceptions for financial hardship, but I admit I’m not exactly sure what qualifies as a hardship, and what doesn’t. I do know the bill provides for subsidies to help pay for insurance for those who make up to 400% over the poverty level, and expands Medicaid coverage to all persons making less than 133% of the current poverty level (I happen to disagree with this portion of the bill, people in this bracket have little enough incentive to get off the teat and be a functional part of society, giving them free medical sure isn’t going to encourage that). The forced coverage applies to anyone who doesn’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and who isn’t already on an employer plan of some sort. Well, these are usually people on the lower end of the middle class who make too much for Medicaid, and make too little to afford having insurance removed from their check, and it will be interesting to see whether or not those folks fall in the range that provides federal subsidies or not, and exactly how helpful those subsidies are.
I’m going to start off with the health care bill commonly referred to as Obamacare and officially known as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a handful of ridiculous misconceptions held by both democrats and republicans (to be more clear, both sides have completely differing misconceptions about the bill)
First off. I’m not a believer in the bill. But, I’m not a believer because I’ve done my research, and in my mind, the various portions of the bill can be divided into 3 categories. First, there are portions of the bill which are pointless; their intention is to lower the cost of insurance, but in the end they’ll be offset by other portions of the bill, and insurance will either remain the same cost, or get even more expensive. Second, there are portions of the bill that I find to be over regulating a private industry, as well as the part we’re all familiar with, that I personally find to be a violation of constitutional rights (though not how most people assume) and Third, there are portions of the bill that, yes, I think are excellent ideas, that will help even the middle class get better health care.
First off. I’m not a believer in the bill. But, I’m not a believer because I’ve done my research, and in my mind, the various portions of the bill can be divided into 3 categories. First, there are portions of the bill which are pointless; their intention is to lower the cost of insurance, but in the end they’ll be offset by other portions of the bill, and insurance will either remain the same cost, or get even more expensive. Second, there are portions of the bill that I find to be over regulating a private industry, as well as the part we’re all familiar with, that I personally find to be a violation of constitutional rights (though not how most people assume) and Third, there are portions of the bill that, yes, I think are excellent ideas, that will help even the middle class get better health care.
Republicans, particularly Fox news, consistently refer to Obamacare as “socialized medicine” or some similar response. Democrats get offended, calling it justice, that those who need it will finally have coverage. Both groups are raving lunatics, and ridiculously incorrect. The public, for the most part, knows exactly squat about the bill, but rave against it, or for it, all the same. Most Fox News watching, borderline foaming at the mouth republicans, will simply say “They’re forcing everyone to have healthcare against our will, and they’re using our tax dollars to give healthcare away to the people too lazy to work for it” That’s awesome. Its an 1800+ page bill, with MANY separate changes to health insurance, and that’s the best you can do? Two small parts, and you can’t even get those completely accurate? Then you’ve got the bleeding heart liberals. They get all teary eyed when you mention the bill, and they’ll tell you in almost poetic prose how the great Obama is saving us all by providing healthcare to those who need it most. Again, 1800 pages of bill, and that’s the only redeemable quality you can find in it? Research it, and don’t waggle your righteous finger at me again until you have done so.
Now, in a system of socialized medicine, the government uses public funds (i.e. taxes) to provide the public with health care, the quality of which varies widely from country to country, but is universally superior to third world countries, and generally (but not always) substandard in comparison to industrialized nations with non-socialized medicine.
Obamacare doesn’t make free healthcare available to everyone, only the poor, so it is not socialized medicine, so get your heads out of your asses and stop calling it that, you sound ignorant. However, it does force everyone to have medical insurance. When a government tells you that you have to do something, not for purposes of public or national safety but simply because they said so, that’s Fascism, not Socialism. Sorry liberals, but it’s true. The government has quite literally, no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to force me to purchase anything, no matter how big or small. At the very least, this is a states rights issue. Lets examine the Tenth Amendment. This amendment is last on the Bill of Rights, but it was actually a key piece in the establishment of the Constitution and the formation of our nation. Its text is very simple, and is easily one of the least open to interpretation of all Amendments. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. This is not rocket science, but I’ll super simplify it. If it’s not covered in the constitution, it’s up to the individual states. Period. Now go get me a copy of the constitution where health insurance is mentioned in some fashion. Don’t talk to me about health care (you won’t find that in there either though), because that’s not really what the bill is about, it’s really about insurance, and I’ll be damned if the federal government has any right to tell me I HAVE to buy it, or they’ll levy a punishment against me. Honestly, I don’t even believe the state has the right to go that far. Now, the bill does make allowances/exceptions for financial hardship, but I admit I’m not exactly sure what qualifies as a hardship, and what doesn’t. I do know the bill provides for subsidies to help pay for insurance for those who make up to 400% over the poverty level, and expands Medicaid coverage to all persons making less than 133% of the current poverty level (I happen to disagree with this portion of the bill, people in this bracket have little enough incentive to get off the teat and be a functional part of society, giving them free medical sure isn’t going to encourage that). The forced coverage applies to anyone who doesn’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, and who isn’t already on an employer plan of some sort. Well, these are usually people on the lower end of the middle class who make too much for Medicaid, and make too little to afford having insurance removed from their check, and it will be interesting to see whether or not those folks fall in the range that provides federal subsidies or not, and exactly how helpful those subsidies are.
Another portion of the bill, of which I am not a fan, is the requirement on insurance companies to spend a percentage of the premiums they receive on healthcare improvements. Now, I’m not exactly a fan of insurance companies, but they are a business, and their business is gambling for profit. Who is the government to tell them how that profit should be spent? Especially when several other portions of the bill will comsume a sizable portion of that profit. In the end, the insurance company raises the cost until their bottom line remains the same, then we all end up paying more, and the only people who benefit in the end are people getting their mooch on with the federal teat, and doctors and hospitals who receive and pocket the “improvement” money from the insurance companies, and people, if you think one dime of that money is actually going to improve healthcare, your naivety is beyond even my reach. Go find a large rock under which you can dwell.
There are however, redeeming portions of this bill as well, regardless of what any hardline republican would have you believe. Evil traitorous bastard that I am, I’m going to cover them as well, in the name of fairness. First, co-pays and deductibles are eliminated for “preventative care” visits. That means when women make the yearly visit to the lady doc, it’s free. When guys over 30 get their annual finger in the bum, it’s free. This is a good thing, because right now, a staggering number of people don’t get their yearly checkups because they don’t want to pay the co-pay, or because they have a deductible which means they’ll be paying full visit price (ouch) unless they’ve already spent a pretty penny meeting that deductible. This benefits everyone. If you already go annually, it will save you money. If you don’t go, you can now go, and not be concerned about cost. If you still say this doesn’t benefit you, and refuse to go, then you’re just being a stubborn idiot who has been stomping your feet so long about Obamacare that you refuse to admit ANY of it could possibly be a good thing, even if it kills you, literally. Second, annual and lifetime coverage caps are banned. For most folks, they’ll never notice this part. For the rest though, it can be a lifesaver. If your wife comes down with cancer and spends 6 months in the hospital, your insurance company can no longer send you a letter that basically says “sorry, we paid your annual maximum of 25 thousand dollars, the hospital will be billing you for the remaining 75 thousand, have a nice day” For anyone who ends up with a long term care situation, this could be the difference between moving your family into a van, or keeping your house. The only downfall to this, is that you can be sure insurance companies will compensate, and rates will rise. But in this case, and the next, I’m willing to cede that, especially if it could be the determining factor of whether or not some kid ends up homeless because mommy or daddy got sick. If you still see this part of the bill as bad, you’re either, again, ridiculously stubborn, or coldhearted to the point of being a sociopath.
Finally, the pre-existing condition clause. This one can be argued from both sides of the fence, because in my opinion it’s a good idea they took a little too far. It basically states that insurance companies cannot deny someone based on pre-existing conditions, and even goes so far as to say two persons of the same age, from the same area, will pay the same premiums. I think this is a good idea, because too often, once a condition exists, people are forced to remain with the same job to keep their insurance because moving to a different job would result in a loss of medical coverage. However, I don’t like how broad it is. They excluded tobacco use, but many other choice based conditions are not excluded, and I don’t think someone who makes choices which negatively impact their health should pay the same rates as someone who makes choices which positively impact their health. And for the record, I’m even in that first group. I could go on and on and on about this bill, but I think I’ve made my point, the bill has it’s bad points, for sure. But it also has it’s good points. Which outweighs which is going to vary from depending on your viewpoint, but it’s ridiculous to see people with such polarized opinions about something which they most likely know very little about. Educate thyself... “Ignorance is not such a shame, as being unwilling to learn” – Benjamin Franklin - Best. Quote. Ever.
Now, on to the juicy stuffs. In the past several years, politics has suddenly become ultra polarizing. Two groups have emerged as frontrunners in this, Extreme Liberals, and Extreme Religious Conservatives. Both groups are stark raving mad, and both groups, contrary to what they’d have you believe, want to tell you how to live, what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your own home, and in general, shit all over the Constitution by deciding what rights you should have and shouldn’t have, based on their own personal beliefs, which they are more than willing to force on you, regardless of whether or not you share those beliefs. Yay extremists. I’m not going to talk about the extreme liberals at this time, because to be honest, I think they’re like a toothless pit bull at this point. Lots of bark, still a potential for danger if backed into a corner, but harmless if ignored, because quite frankly, their time has passed. They had Gore with Clinton, but Clintons moderacy (comparatively) kept him in constant check. They had Obama, and that just didn’t work out as planned. At least for the next two years (until mid term elections, where they can make a bigger difference in spread out clusters) they’ve been neutered.
Religious conservatives though… dangerous. Don’t bother hiding your women and children, but if you’ve got a gay uncle, get him under the floorboards and make sure he’s got a copy of the constitution for safe keeping. Current candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are such conservatives, but while Ron Paul seems to be more interested in doing the right thing for the country, Santorum seems focused on making the citizens of the country do the right thing (based on his own beliefs). And frankly, that scares the crap out of me. Rick Santorum, in my mind, is the kind of person that, given the opportunity to expand the extent of his power, you could easily end up comparing to Pope Urban II or Miguel de Morillo. Go ahead, look them up if you don’t know who they are, it will be worth your while. Now some might say that’s an awfully extreme view of Santorum, to which I can only reply, have you actually ever listened to this guy talk??
I don’t have a problem with religious conservatism in and of itself. But, as a Christian, I am a FIRM believer that it is wrong to force your beliefs on someone who chooses not to accept them. There is nothing wrong with an offer to share your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with an offer to teach someone your beliefs. But there is something inherently sinful (Irony much?) and frightening about someone who sees no problem forcing their beliefs on someone else, and, sans their conversion, forcing them to live by the rules of your religion anyways. This group of republican, Christian, religious conservatives has been building momentum over the past few years, using anti-muslim sentiment since 9/11 to fuel their expansion of power, and using a few central issues to solidify their base around. If you ask them, they’ll tell you how our country was founded on Christian religious beliefs, making the US out to be some sort of Christian holy land looked upon with favoring eyes by god himself, and the more we take god out of this country, the more of His ire we will bring down upon ourselves. They’ll tell you we need to change the laws, that our laws should reflect the bible (which is funny, because several laws they’ll suggest need changing aren’t really mentioned as black and white in the bible as they’d have you believe) They’ll tell you we need to make Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter nationally recognized religious holidays (one falls on a Sunday, and the other one we already all get the day off, how much more do you fracking want?). Without saying it outright, they’ll hint that we just trash the constitution and that snag about religion and government separation.
Newsflash, you’re wrong. This country was NOT founded on religious beliefs, and if you even open your mouth to start arguing, I’d highly suggest you pull your foot out of your face and read or at least skim, the Federalist Papers. Though not a specific booklet or collection, this term refers to papers and letters written by the founders of our country which cover a wide variety of their feelings on various topics, and which eventually found their way woven into our constitution and declaration of independence. If you read those two particular documents, you might be left with questions as to the why, or the how, or regarding specific intent. If you read the Federalist papers, though they hold no legal powers, those questions will almost all be answered. You’ll also find that, seeing as how religious persecution by a theocratic ruled monarchy was cause for people to take refuge on this continent in the first place, one of the intents of the founders was to create a haven for basic human rights, without the interference of religious power. Not only was this country not founded on the basis of Christianity, it was founded with the hopes the religion wouldn’t interfere at all in its formation, and with the rights of its citizens moving forward. The word “God” is only mentioned loosely in the Declaration of Independence, and not even in a manner as to invoke any sort of religion specific images. God isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution. It wasn’t even always on our money, and when it was originally written, the pledge of allegiance made no mention of God. For centuries, in this country like no other, the rights of the people granted by the Constitution have superseded any limitation placed on those rights by religious or other outside influences. Lately however, Christian conservatives have somehow taken to believe that this is the Christian States of America, and that their beliefs should forced upon everyone else through law, and rights of those individuals be damned. They, quite literally, do not care about the rights of individuals. They only care that everyone is living by the standards they set, by the rules that they demand, and Rick Santorum is the pinnacle, he is the penultimate warning, that this is what our future could be if we elect a religious zealot into office. Listen to him talk, really listen, and if he doesn’t scare you, just a little, then you’re probably one of them. The idea that one group of people should be allowed to force their beliefs on everyone is asinine, but anyone ridiculous enough to actually believe that it’s ok, isn’t likely to be persuaded differently by anything I write here. However, if you’re one of them, and you think your rights supersede the rights of, for example, another citizen who is of a different religion than you, or if you believe, mistakenly, that this country is a Christian country, founded on Christian beliefs, I challenge you to speak up with sound reason and tell me why. And I’ll be more than happy to explain why you’re wrong in specific detail as it regards to whatever reason you make up for the sake of your argument. For Chists sake, literally, leave people be, do not judge, as the bible preaches, love thy neighbor unconditionally instead of persecuting him because he doesn’t believe what you believe. Christ preached love of one another over all things, not judgment and condemnation, so get your head out of the Old Testament. This isn’t supposed to be fire and brimstone, an eye for an eye. Christ changed that. It’s supposed to be turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor. But most religious conservatives gloss over that part when they’re busy trying to crucify whatever the current group de jour target for their ire might be.
In the end, looking at just these two issues, what we’ve got is polarization of the American populace on a political level. It wasn’t always this way. In the not too distant past, common sense was the rule, and stances on a handful of issues made the difference between candidates. But I believe the truth is that most Americans exist in a much more moderate “common sense” zone when they just stop and think about where they really stand on the issues, and which issues that really care about vs which ones they can really get worked up about. What most people desire, I believe, is to lead a comfortable life, to work, and provide for their family, and to do so with as little interference as possible from outside influences not of their own choosing, including government, religion, or just some crazy who hates video games (Jack Thompson, I’m talking to you here asshat). Live and let live. So, extremists, get over yourselves, you’re not special, you have no right to exact dominion over others for religious reasons or non; take this as a warning, push too far, and you’ll be pushed back, people don’t like being told what to do, and they have limits. There seems to be this vibe that an organized violent uprising is simply out of the question as a possibility. I happen to believe otherwise. It happens literally all the time, all over the world. It’s happened here before, and it can happen again. Oh well, went off on a tangent, hope you stuck with me and I hope you enjoyed my rambling.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
As things start to unfold in the race for the Republican nomination, I’ve become keenly aware of a very frightening reality: We’re on the verge of getting stuck with four more years of Obama, and if that happens, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of the people who want him in office the least.
First, people underestimate Obamas intelligence, he’s exceedingly smart, and Boehner is playing into his hand at every turn. As a result, a lot of the middle ground voters that republican voters picked up in the mid term elections will be gone by the time November rolls around, mostly due to Boehner and what has to be the most ridiculously arrogant congress we’ve had in decades. They believe that because we stood up and said “enough” and put republicans back in the majority in the house, they can literally do whatever they want. They seem ignorant of the fact that they won seats in the senate, but not enough to gain a majority, and that the overall election results were only slightly in favor of republicans.
Then of course he’s going to get the vote of people who probably couldn’t even name two of the republican candidates, but are voting for Obama because of who he is, not because of his policies or what he stands for (If you require more explanation than this, you may as well stop reading here, your energy would be better spent improving your education or pulling your head out of your ass, whichever may be the case.
On the other side of the fence, you’ve got republican voters, divided into four groups, and this is where problems start to arise.
Group one is the tea party voters, or, as I like to call them, the mass brainwashed. Realistically, this is the kool-aid party, and they’re only missing a guy named Jim to pass out the delicious cyanide laced beverage. The tea party voters seem to like indecisive wishy washy candidates who make a lot of noise about being ultra conservative and/or religious, or, sans that option, they seem more than happy to vote for someone who’s insanity is only rivaled by their idiocy. The result is a whole bunch of candidates who not only perfectly fit that voting criteria, but at the same time, are exactly what the tea party was supposed to be against in the first place, pro-establishment politicians. Of course, the tea party isn’t really the tea party anymore, and hasn’t been since it let itself become the bought and paid for springboard to Sarah Palins foxnews career since her political career was going nowhere fast. So the potentially largest single block of unified republican voters isn’t unified at all. Their votes are scattered amongst multiple candidates. If one of those candidates doesn’t win the nomination, theres no telling what will happen with the tea party vote in 2012. If one of these candidates forges ahead as an independent, forget it, we’re stuck with four more years of Obama, as the numbers needed to beat him will be too divided.
The second group of voters are the informed. They look at the issues, paying particular attention to those that matter most to them (the beauty of a democracy, choose the candidate that best represents your beliefs, right?) and make a decision based on that information. Most of these voters will compromise on one or two issues, in order to get the candidate who they believe will truly be the best leader for the country. This group’s problem is twofold. First, they are few in number compared to the other groups. Second, the candidates they vote for rarely fit the mold that the average sheep citizen is looking for in a candidate. It only takes one non-conformist idea (legalize pot is a perfect example) to prevent the uninformed masses from voting for this candidate (“what, he/she wants to legalize pot!? Oh noes, let me vote for whoever else is on the ballot, I don’t care who, even if I have no clue where they stand on the issues!!) This group will still vote for that individual, and when the dust settles and some idiot is trying his hardest to screw up this country in his short four years because the uninformed voted him in, this group of voters will hold their head high and have a clear conscience, even if they are more than just a little angry about the state of affairs of our government.
The third group are the voters who vote based on “electability” instead of who they actually think would be the best leader. These cowards refuse to stand up for what they actually believe in (or maybe not, if you’re willing to vote this way in the first place, maybe you’re just an apathetic loser anyway) and instead they willingly vote with the masses on an “I guess so” candidate they think will get the most votes. These schmucks are the second most responsible group of people for the current state of our nation. They’ll vote for whoever wears the right suit, the right tie, runs the perfect campaign blend of good vibe vs awful smear commercials. Blithering idiot? They don’t care as long as you’re name sounds like it could be a kid from down the block and your smile is nice. Flip flopper on a grand scale? What flip flop? They are too busy admiring his awesome hair and his trustworthy smile (you know, because the average person is the perfect judge of character when it comes to nice smiles, right Ted Bundy?) In short, these people vote for politicians above all else. Hence, why our countries political system has gone to complete crap since the invention of the television. You think either of the Roosevelts would have stood a chance of being elected had people been able to see what they looked like prior to voting for them? Nope. Back then, you actually had to listen to what a candidate had to say, which meant that candidate had to be able to speak better than the average 4th grader, and had to be consistent, because folks were listening to what you really had to say; *gasp* what a concept. Nowadays, you could almost get away with calling debates pageants, because that’s all they are, they don’t even debate anymore, because no one can actually put a sensible thought together, and when they do, the other 5 blithering idiots are too busy interrupting him for him to get that idea out in his allotted time. And why? All because this group of voters has no idea what real leadership is, they just THINK they know what it looks like…
And last, as well as least, the bottom of the barrel of voters. The truly apathetic (or just remove the ‘a’, it would still be appropriate). Even more so than the group listed above, this group will tell you in casual conversation “I don’t care about politics”. Well then, why don’t you move your ass to somewhere they don’t have politics. Cuba would suit you well. I think there are a few African nations with military dictators where you would never have to worry yourself with silly things like, you know, who is going to actually run the country in which you reside. These people either don’t vote at all, because they just can’t be bothered (i.e. they don’t care) or they actually do vote, and then they do so based on some ridiculous criteria, like name recognition, or something about some candidate they heard from some guy they work with over in accounting who they suppose knows what he’s talking about. Personally, I’d rather they just don’t vote at all, on the condition that the first time they complain about literally ANYTHING, someone punch them in the mouth. These people will commonly defend their position with the phrase “It doesn’t matter who gets elected, nothing will change, all politicians are the same anyhow” If that’s the case, and you’ve ever used that sorry excuse, lets examine a few things:
Obamas health care bill. Not much change huh? Not much, except a sweeping all out change to the way health care will operate in this country going forward. And Bushes tax cuts, which personally saved my family about 900 bucks a year for about 6 years. Or the war on terror? I’m pretty sure that’s an awful lot of change for the families of those who lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the Patriot Act. Whats a little watering down of your constitutional rights when it comes to your personal safety, right? Just watch what you say, or who you talk to, hate to see that non-change get you stuck in Guantanamo. How about the Clinton policies that ultimately lead to banking practices that almost crashed the entire global economy into the dark ages. You know, the ones that put your mortgage underwater? Or what about Reagan and the policies and posturing that, combined with the right political climate at the right time ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union?
Obamas health care bill. Not much change huh? Not much, except a sweeping all out change to the way health care will operate in this country going forward. And Bushes tax cuts, which personally saved my family about 900 bucks a year for about 6 years. Or the war on terror? I’m pretty sure that’s an awful lot of change for the families of those who lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the Patriot Act. Whats a little watering down of your constitutional rights when it comes to your personal safety, right? Just watch what you say, or who you talk to, hate to see that non-change get you stuck in Guantanamo. How about the Clinton policies that ultimately lead to banking practices that almost crashed the entire global economy into the dark ages. You know, the ones that put your mortgage underwater? Or what about Reagan and the policies and posturing that, combined with the right political climate at the right time ultimately led to the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union?
Then theres the other excuse “it’s only one vote, I won’t make a difference” No, if you were the only person that changed your mind, got off your butt and voted, or, if you already vote indiscriminately, voted with your conscience based on information, you’re right, it wouldn’t make a difference. But if all of you got off the couch at the same time and voted, I can assure you, it would be a difference maker. But I’d hate to disturb the perfect little bubble in which you exist. Whats that? Your life isn’t perfect? Then vote for someone whom you believe might change that, or stfu, because if you don’t vote, and some president comes along and does something you don’t like, the constitution only provides you first amendment free speech rights as protection from the government, not from the punch in the mouth I hope someone gives you the first time you open it to complain.
Now, lets examine the other half of this upcoming travesty, the current candidates.
Newt Gingrich. This man is the penultimate politician. That is to say, this guy could be stroking you with one hand, and slipping the wallet out of your pocket with the other, and you’d think it was all ok, meanwhile he’s telling your wife everything she wants to hear while his forked tongue is slipping her diamond earrings off without her ever noticing. I trust this guy about as far as I would someone who tried to sell me a bottle that was actually labeled snake oil. You know that image you get when you picture the stereotypical used car salesman? Turquoise jewelry, cowboy boots, hideous blazer, and a neverending smile? Newt is the political equivalent to that same image. He could come out and say he shares my view on every single political issue, and I still wouldn’t vote for him. His biggest draw will be with people in group four above. Everyone knows his name, so they’ll vote for him. “Yeah, I know that name! What do you mean what does he stand for, you’ve heard of him before, haven’t you? Isn’t that enough?” /vomit
Rick Santorum. Pretty boy #1. Holy shit, what a flake. He stands about as firm on issues as overcooked pasta. This guy is “supposedly” a religious conservative, but he can’t even make a firm decision and statement about abortion? If theres one constant amongst all religious conservative voters, it’s that every one of them will beat you bloody with the abortion debate. A candidate could literally descend from the sky, walk on water, say all the right things, and if he said one thing that indicated he was pro choice, they’d burn him at the stake. If he can’t even get the story right for what is supposed to be his core group, he has no chance against Obama, who maintains the vote of the ridiculously uninformed. Mr Santorum will garner votes from groups 1 and 3 above.
Rick Perry, aka, the other pretty boy. When he first came out, and his campaign put out his stance on issues, I thought, hey, this guy might be alright. Then I saw him talk. *sigh*. If it’s medically possible, him and Rick Santorum might actually share a brain. That’s about how smart they each are. But at least when he’s being wishy washy, Santorum can maintain a head of steam in a speech. Perry can’t even remember where he stands on the issues, how the fuck is that even possible? If you ACTUALLY have a stance on an issue, then you don’t just forget what it is. If I’m pro-death penalty (which I am) I’m not going to get on a stage, and suddenly become unsure of my convictions. I might forget the words to a speech if I’m a little struck with stage fright, but forget what I believe in? Really? Really sad, that’s what I say. What Mr Perry is very good at though, is attacking other candidates for not being as conservative as he is… but he’s not conservative, he’s not anything at all, he’s a puppet. Did you know that Texas is one of the states that put the federal stimulus money to it’s best uses? Actually creating jobs, and using the money for what it was intended? Meanwhile, Perry makes a point of being anti-Obama by constantly mentioning how useless the stimulus was… Can you say loser?
Sarah Palin, oops, I mean, Michele Bachmann. This woman is either an evil super genius, or she is just as stupid as she seems. There simply can be no in between. If she’s an evil super genius, then she’s doing an ok job of capitalizing on Palins popularity with tea party voters , by acting as stupid as Palin, and as crazy as Palin backed Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell. Neither bid is working out for her politically, but I don’t think that’s her plan. She seems to spend as much time doing news and talk show interviews as she does actually campaigning, and I’m starting to think she’s actually only in this for the name/face recognition she’ll get which can be put to good use getting a half hour slot after Palin on Fox News once her term in congress comes to an end. Or, the alternate is she’s just really a half crazed, low IQ politician who actually thinks people will vote for her to lead this country. She’ll pull a handful of votes from the tea party because she’ll remind them fondly of Palin and her lost chances /eyeroll, and she’ll pull a handful of votes from group four above, because they’re just stupid enough to vote for someone based on knowing not a thing about her (anyone who’s paid attention to her, and has a clean bill of mental health, would not vote for this woman, even those from aforementioned group 4)
Mitt Romney. Oh. My. Lord. I could right a blog entry about this guy all on his own. Former cut throat business owner. Former governor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All around swell guy. This guys has a salesmans smile and a handshake that I’ll bet makes you feel as a good as a Korean massage parlor. Mitts claim to fame in this campaign is that as an operator of big business, he knows how to create jobs, and he can bring that experience to the white house and help our economy. If you’re buying into this load, read the next part carefully… It’s all a pack of lies. Romney got rich by downsizing to maximize profits. He literally made a living laying people off, it was his specialty. He would take a company toeing the line, put in more “efficient” policies, lay a ton of people off, and watch the money roll right into his wallet. If Mitt was running on a promise to reduce the size of government, make it more efficient, less bloated and less expensive to run, I would literally have no problem believing he could do just that. But he’s not. He keeps telling people he can create jobs. Wrong story bro. As for his political career, this guy was elected by quite possibly the worst block of voters in the US to run their state. I have a LOT of friends and family in Massachusetts. But let’s be honest, this state kept Ted Kennedy in office for 8 elections, over a span of almost 47 years. Are you kidding me? Let me re-iterate. The same people that elected Mitt Romney, elected an alcoholic killer to the senate 8 times. To make matters even more clear, they’ve also maintained Barney Frank as a member of Congress for the past 30 years and running, SIXTEEN terms. Let’s be clear, I could care less that the guy is gay, it doesn’t even bother me that he tried to legalize a red light district in Boston (a good idea if you ask me, but I won’t get into why right at this time) Nope. What bothers me most is the most recent election. It was already out that Barney Frank, as a chief member of the Financial Services Committee, had completely failed in his job, and was at least partially responsible for doing absolutely nothing when he had the chance, to prevent the housing bust which crushed our economy. In 2003, he shot down a bill which might have changed the way things ended up, and said this in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac : “These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing” and in 2008, he said (just before the sky fell on his head): "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." Well said dumbass, how very forward looking of you. Way to see the writing on the wall. Then the people of Massachusetts re-elected him. Are. You. Kidding. Me. When you invite someone over your house, you might have no clue that they were going to shit on your carpet while your kids are watching. But once they do, do you actually invite them to come back tomorrow? /facepalm. If you think the people of Massachusetts have done a good job historically of picking out their elected officials, then by all means, vote for Romney, but even with his awful track record in business aside, the fact that Massachusetts found him electable ruins it for me. Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware of his business record. Even fewer people have any idea how awful Massachusetts voters are at choosing leadership (Mayor Menino for FIVE terms, R E A L L Y!?!?) And on the rest of the issues, Mitt is fairly middle of the road, mostly because he’s more business than politics, and doesn’t really know enough about non-economic issues to take much of a stance. He has a general vibe of that “electability” trait I mentioned earlier. He’s not particularly extreme, so he won’t offend to many folks. He’s clean cut. He’s a family man. This is going to get him a lot of votes from group 3, with a good smattering of votes from groups 1 and 4. Against Obama, with none of the other candidates involved in the race as an independent, Romney could win I believe, mostly by getting more or less all of the republican vote and enough of the independents that are fed up with Obama to give us a win, if you call four more years of suckage, a win. Amazing. Sad, but amazing.
Ron Paul. To look at him, Ron Paul fits the mold of the “old school” politician. You know, Helms, Thurman, etc. But to hear him talk and if you actually listen to what he has to say, what he believes in ad where he stands on the issues, things change completely. I don’t agree with Mr Paul on all of the issues, but I agree with him wholeheartedly on the most serious issues. His views are somewhat offbeat, or, as some of his doubters say, “extreme”. But his ideas are really only all that extreme if you are really all that closeminded. Yes, he proposes some drastic changes to our government structure, as well as some major changes to our foreign policy. If you think we’re doing fine in both areas, and our government is not a bureaucratic disaster, then by all means vote for someone else. If you somehow believe our foreign policy as the worlds policeman and international money sponge is working out just great when we have children right here in this country that are homeless, starving, or both, then by all means stick with the status quo. Mr Paul believes very strongly in the constitution and his stance on issues is proof of that. He is somewhat religious conservative, and is against gay marriage and is anti-abortion. BUT. He believes that these issues are for states to decide, not the federal government. And he’s right. The constitution specifically states that any domain not mentioned within it, is for the states to govern, not the federal government. Mr Paul also has the downside of being older than the other candidates by a good margin. A factor that many believe makes him a one term president at best. And? I’d rather have four years of good change than four more years of BS. He doesn’t flex on his beliefs, he doesn’t take 5 minutes of explanation for a yes/no question, he knows what his plans are, not just what his goals are. Romney tells you he will create jobs, but can’t tell you how he plans to do it. Bachmann tells you she’ll get the economy back on track, but can’t explain for one second how she intends to do it. Ask Ron Paul what he plans to do about the budget, and he’ll tell you exactly how he’ll shrink government, right down to the departments he would downsize or eliminate. He’ll tell you that he plans to cut foreign spending, and pull our troops back to within our own borders to reduce military costs. Every politician tells you what they want to accomplish, almost NONE of them can tell you exactly what plans they have to get it done though. Then we elect them, and none of it ever comes to fruition, because they never had a plan in the first place, and you’re not going to get much done if you don’t know how you want to do it. Some people doubt Mr Pauls ability to accomplish his goals. But, he’s wisely chosen his moves as ones a president can pull off with little or no interference from Congress. Foreign Aid. Sure, congress makes the budget, but this is an area that the president has a lot of influence over. Military? He might not have the power to completely close a base without approval from the Military Oversight Committee, but he can certainly pull enough troops from it to make it senseless to keep open. Government cutbacks of entire departments? He can pull that off with a simple signature. Closing an entire department might be more tricky, but not impossible. Sure, there are other things he’d like to do that are likely unattainable without a very cooperative Congress, but the things already mentioned would create more useful change than the last 3 presidents combined over the past 20 years. Mr Paul does have some problems though. He lacks the electability factor, and in a primary race against Santorum and Romney, he’s going to have a hard time beating either. He’s not a puppet, which means even if he makes an excellent showing and is able to hang in there, it’s unlikely he’ll get the party nomination. They’d rather have someone they can puppet, so the government can continue the raping of the middle class until we literally just don’t have a country anymore. Santorum would make the ultimate puppet, but I think Romney would get the nomination based on that electability factor (i.e. how many idiots can we get to vote for this guy without knowing anything about who he really is?) But, in truth, If he could get the nomination, I believe Ron Paul might be the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. He’s most likely to pull the independent vote, because he’s actually not as extreme as most people think. He’s very center when it comes to politics, very common sense vs party politics. He’ll also pull a lot of the young vote because I think young voters are in favor of his foreign policies as well as his desire to limit government interference in personal lives. Oh, and he wants to repeal the Patriot Act and abolish the TSA, both good moves in the eyes of young voters. This basically steals away the same group that helped Obama get elected in ’08. But, he would have to get the nomination first, and while I’ll certainly vote for him, I highly doubt he’ll get the call. Mr Paul will get 90% of the vote from group 2. He'll get a handful of the smarter folks from group 1. He'll even get a little of the group 4 vote based on name recognition. He'll get almost none of group 3 unless he actually gets the Republican nomination.
What we're left with is most likely Romney vs Obama. Romney is going to get the Republican vote, but he's not exactly going to inspire people to vote, so he'll only get the dedicated voters into the booths. He'll get a smattering of moderates and independents. Obama will get the liberal democratic base. He'll get that other vote I mentioned earlier. In the end, probably very close race, but which way the nickel would land is hard to say, an in my eyes, irrelevant. Some people are rallying to the ridiculous cry of "anyone but Obama". I'm not an Obama fan, but given the choice between shitty and shittier, I'd probably vote for neither and vote Libertarian if they have someone on the NC ballot, or write in.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Gun control is the first step to controlling the people.
So here now, I’d like to talk about something a bit more controversial to some, but a bit more personal to me. Gun Control. Unfortunately, most of the folks that will read this sit on the same side of the fence as I do, so I won’t get the feedback I’d like to see from the other side of the fence. But this is something I feel very strongly about, so I’m going to write about it anyways.
Let me start by telling you, I’ve been around guns my entire life. Before I ever touched one, my father did a good job if engraining certain beliefs about guns into my head. Aside from the obvious and glaring safety basics, one of the first things I learned about guns is that they are a tool, no different from any other tool. Improperly used or handled, they can be dangerous or deadly to both the operator as well as those around him. One argument I hear frequently is that guns are not like other tools, because they are more deadly, to which I can only respond, a steak knife through the eye, a circular saw through the femoral artery or a climbing rope wound around the neck all are just as deadly as a 9mm to the chest, arguably, all of the above could even be more deadly, depending on circumstances.
That the primary use of a gun is to destroy life is without question. I won’t argue the point, like some pro-gun folks will, that a guns primary use as a line of defense is deterrence. Hogwash. I’ve got nothing to hide, and no reason to lie or deceive. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold, with the primary purpose being to cause death. Sure, there are LOTS of folks who use them strictly for pleasure, a day at the range, or even a day shooting bottles in the woods. There are also many people who use them for competitions, 3 gun, USPSA, NRA long rifle, there are numerous tournaments and competitions for firearms. But these are secondary. The primary and original purpose was and is, to cause death, and to avoid that and dance around it, only hurts the pro-gun movement, and does nothing to further it.
There are so many reasons to be anti gun control, that it’s difficult to know exactly where to begin, so I’ve decided to start with history. Since the dawn of time, since groups of cavemen went to war by throwing rocks at one another, man has had three primary uses for any weapon he has developed. First, to provide food. Second, to defend against attackers. Third, to be the attacker, and take that which other people have claimed for themselves. And almost as long as these tenets have been in place, those in power have sought to disarm those they rule over in order to provide security for their rule. Even before firearms, there are numerous examples or a tyrannical ruling body seeking to disarm, or keep unarmed, a populace that was unhappy with their rule. This is the reason that so many weapons we see today in the Asian derived martial arts are transformed versions of what were once farming implements.
In more modern times, we have examples like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot to look at. I’m not going to be your history teacher, if you want specifics, you should look each of them up and how they relate to gun control. But one thing they had in common is that all of them used one form or another of gun control to disarm a civilian populace in order to solidify their reign. Lenin said “one man with a gun can control 100 without a gun” and it’s true. And so, the one surefire, foolproof way to prevent our government from sliding into a more tyrannical rule is to remain an armed and aware populace. Currently the US is most well-armed civilian population on the planet. This isn’t even close. There is no real “second place” in a comparison of this sort and the US would be in first second and third if there was. We have guns, lots of them, and the government knows it, and every other government knows it as well. If it weren’t for the fact that our civilian population has more small arms than our military, I’m convinced that “taxation without representation” would be far more rampant than it already is (and that’s saying a lot…)
Our forefathers were no fools. There is a reason they wrote the second amendment to include the right to bear arms. Corrupt men unopposed only become more corrupt. An armed population provides a counterpoint that is undeniable and always present.
As much as I hate to take sides on the liberals vs conservatives debate (one is as evil as the other if you ask me) The liberals want to tell you what to do. It is their belief that they, and only they, should decide what is best for you, your kids, and the general populace. They want to take what you have, and give it to the less fortunate. They want to protect you from yourself and from your neighbors. They want to put you in a safe little bubble over which they have total control so that you can lead a full and rich life exactly as they define it. The one thing stopping them is guns. So, while they whittle away at all your other rights a little at a time. While they try to tell you what you can and can not hear on the radio or what is or is not acceptable for you to display on your lawn, they are always, and always have been, trying to take your guns away. Realistically, such an undertaking is massive. Insane. Though hard to determine positively, it is widely accepted that there are roughly 9 guns for every 10 people in the US, man woman and child. That’s over 300 million LEGAL guns in this country. Taking them all away is a ridiculous undertaking to even attempt, so don’t worry, the US government isn’t going to show up at your house looking to take away your legally owned guns any time soon, to think they will is silliness, the logistics are just too staggering to understand. But, they can do their best to convince people that don’t have one, not to buy one. They can get a handful to give the one they have up or to turn it in to a police department for destruction. They can create legislation that makes you hop skip and jump through so many hoops to get one, that only the most determined would ever buy one. They can create tarrifs and regulations that make it so expensive to produce or import them, that the cost makes it prohibitive for most people. And by doing these things, they can, slowly, whittle away at the number of armed citizens in the US. You don’t have to disarm an entire populace to control it, just enough of them to be an insignificant threat. So remember that when the debate comes up, and don’t let your congressman or senator pass any laws that inhibit your ability to become or remain, an armed citizen.
Of course, the sportsmen’s debate also comes up every time I talk about gun control. People will say they provide food for their families with their hunting rifles or shotguns. Silly argument, because then they’ll just want your handguns. Just? I don’t think so. Personally, my handguns are for the protection of my family. A hunting rifle is a piss poor substitute in this situation. It’s dangerous to be wielding indoors, in hallways and doorways. Its rounds will easily penetrate the human body at indoor ranges (typically 7yds maximum) and continue right on through any walls in the immediate vicinity to endanger the lives of anyone on the other side of said walls. So to those who would defend gun rights by claiming they should be able to keep their rifles for hunting. Shut up. You’re not helping anyone, not even yourselves.
The other side of the sportsmens debate is nothing short of laughable. Semi-automatics, ie “black guns”. You can’t take them away, I hunt with them. OK. What do you hunt? Varmints? Reasonable. Understandable. But a .22 or even better, a .17hmr is a much cheaper and just as effective solution to any varmint problem. So do you hunt large game? Shame on you. I’m not a newcomer to ballistics and bullet makeup and penetration. Hunting anything larger than say, a coyote, with a .223 is irresponsible. The difference in energy imparted between a 308 and a .223 at 200 yards is no joke. I’m not saying the .223 isn’t deadly, but it’s much less of a sure thing when compared to a 308 a 30-06 or any other purpose designed hunting cartridge, and the bigger your game gets, the more and more this holds true. I believe you should be allowed to own an AR-15, an SKS or any one of a dozen semi-automatic rifles classified by the government as “assault rifles” (nice propaganda that there) But I don’t hide behind some BS like, “my ar-15 is my hunting rifle”. First, if you want to just hunt, buy a Remington 30-06, scope it and go hunt. It’s cheaper than an AR-15 and has a dozen different purpose designed cartridges to meet your hunting needs. If you want to own an AR-15 for plinking, varmint clearing or just because you believe it is your right to do so, then just say so. I’m with you, I believe you have the right to own one too, but again, not being straight forward doesn’t do anyone any good.
The one argument that is inevitable, is the number of gun related deaths in the US on a yearly basis. Liberals will simply tell you the numbers, which I’ll admit are high, and then say “there, that’s why we need stricter gun control laws”, this is inevitably the first thing a liberal will try in order to convince you that gun control is a good thing. To the uninformed, seeing those numbers can be convincing all on their own. Which is why I recommend you inform yourself. Of the guns deaths each year in the US, 97% are related to use of an illegal firearm. The guns criminals use were obtained illegally in the first place, and thinking that taking guns away from legally armed citizens will prevent gun deaths caused by illegally owned and obtained guns is just plain asinine. It’s like thinking that declawing the lions you have in captivity will prevent the lions in the wild from killing more gazelle. It’s just ridiculous to even consider as a possibility, yet somehow, they think this is a valid argument. Also, the fact remains that cancer kills FAR more people in the US every year than guns. If they put half the effort into curing cancer that they’ve put into trying to disarm legally armed citizens, we might be just a hair closer to a cure or a better way to fight it, prevent it, or slow it down.
What about the accidental deaths they’ll say, what about the innocent children that die each year? It’s true, innocent children die every year due to gun related accidents. These deaths are a tragedy, but an avoidable one. First, the parents are responsible. You can call me a cold hearted bastard. You can cry about how your so-and-so’s son/nephew/cousin died in an accident involving a firearm in the home. I’ll simply tell you this, the gun owner was at fault, not the gun. When I was a child, my parents didn’t hide the guns away and make them a mystery I was determined to investigate. Instead, my father would break them down, and clean them in my presence. He’d explain each part, and what it did, show me how the gun came apart and went back together. He’d explain how the gun worked, and what the bullet did, and of course, how dangerous it was if improperly used. He displayed them in a gun cabinet in the open (locked, but visible behind glass doors). He basically removed all the mystery and fascination from them, thereby removing my natural childs curiosity. Kids that die in an accident know as much about guns as they’ve learned from TV. Mom and/or dad keep the gun in a drawer or in a closet, hidden away, and never talk about it. When a child stumbles across it, their natural curiosity kicks in and bad things happen, because these same uninformed people don’t keep the gun in a safe, or they don’t use a cable lock on it, and they leave it where a curious child can find it. That makes them negligent, it makes them responsible, and in my opinion, it makes them criminal. I have loaded guns in my home. My children have all seen them, they know about them, they know how they work, and they know what they can do if improperly handled. Education, of the owner and the child, is the simplest solution to avoiding accidental gun deaths in the home.
Don’t get me started on gun shows, waiting periods and the NRA. These things all irk me to no end. The NRA does a lot of good for gun rights, the pour tens of millions of dollars into lobbying in favor of gun rights, and they’re probably the only reason the liberals haven’t managed to take away our 2nd amendment rights. But those people are insane. Or they’re genius. They approach gun rights the same way PETA approaches animal rights, with an extremism and a twistedness that is spectacular. Personally, as a gun owner, I feel that the NRA, while helping me in Washington, does nothing to help my case in the eyes of the general populace. Charlton Heston for example, was a quack. Ted Nugent is headed down the same road. I believe in our second amendment rights, but those are two individuals are not representative of the average American gun owner.
Waiting periods? Why do so many pro-gun activists have a problem with a waiting period? I just don’t understand. If I decide I want a gun, whether it be a long gun, or a handgun, I’m not going to make that decision the same day that I “need” the gun. There are only three reasons I could fathom for needing a firearm NOW instead of tomorrow or a few days from now. First – I have been invited to go hunting with my buddies, and they’re leaving today for the weekend. Well, if you don’t have a hunting rifle already, then you’re obviously not a hunter, which means you need to sit your ass down in a hunter safety course before you go anywhere anyhow. I don’t want you in the woods with me until you’ve been to one, and most states require it now anyhow, so while we wait for you to attend, that is a perfect time for you to not complain about a waiting period. Second – my life is in danger, and I need to protect myself. Some, not all, but some, states actually have a provision for this. If you can prove imminent danger to you or your family, they will waive the waiting period, and provide a temporary permit for the weapon. Once the period passes, you are still required to go through the normal processes for firearms owernership. Third – I intend to commit a crime, and I need a gun for my *insert violent crime here*. Great, thanks for sharing, go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, and don’t forget to give bubba a kiss on your way in.
And last, of course, gun shows. I love a good gun show. I love the deals that can be had. And I hate that nut jobs can buy guns here and do so without having to go through almost any of the normal hoops. First, this last is only true in certain states now. I’ll tell you, how they handle it here in NC is how it should work everywhere. The vendors can now do instant background checks right at the counters, so if you’re purchasing a long gun, you don’t have to wait long at all before you can take home your shiny new purchase and start practicing on milk jugs and watermelons. But here, if you want to buy a handgun, you go to the sheriff, you fill out a form, and they process that form and provide you with a single “purchase permit” that you can hang on to for 3 years, or you can run out and buy a gun the same day you get the permit. Receiving the permit takes a few days, my wife got hers after 4 days, I got mine after a week (hey, what’s THAT all about!?!) So if you have such a permit, you can purchase a handgun at the gun shows here and be on your merry way. Gun shows always have schedules out in advance, so it’s really not difficult to plan ahead and get your permit before the show dates. People who “legally” purchase a handgun on one of the states that makes it so easy, then use that gun to harm someone else, only help make things more difficult for the rest of us. If you’re a law abiding citizen that purchases guns at gun shows who is against some of the gun show legislation out there, you need to ask yourself why you’re so against it if you’ll still be able to purchase, and if it help keeps the guns out of criminal hands (which in the end gives liberals less excuses to try and take them out of my hands and yours) isn’t for the better in the end?
In short, I’m a firm believer in my second amendment rights, I also believe in the right to carry concealed WITH the proper permit (law abiding citizens should never have a problem with proper licensing for handguns). Liberals can say what they want, but at heart, criminals are cowards, and if they know my house occupied by a gun owner, they’re going to move along to a home they consider a safer target. By the same standard, if more people were armed, legally, there would be less targets for crime, and if more criminals were shot in the course of a crime by a legally armed citizen, there’s a good chance, more would be criminals might think twice about changing their career paths. But, take guns away from the people who own them legally and use them responsibly, and not only does the government feel less inhibited, but the criminals feel less threatened, because they’ve still got their illegally obtained guns, and with no fear of retribution, they’ll put them to use even more frequently than they do now.
Let me start by telling you, I’ve been around guns my entire life. Before I ever touched one, my father did a good job if engraining certain beliefs about guns into my head. Aside from the obvious and glaring safety basics, one of the first things I learned about guns is that they are a tool, no different from any other tool. Improperly used or handled, they can be dangerous or deadly to both the operator as well as those around him. One argument I hear frequently is that guns are not like other tools, because they are more deadly, to which I can only respond, a steak knife through the eye, a circular saw through the femoral artery or a climbing rope wound around the neck all are just as deadly as a 9mm to the chest, arguably, all of the above could even be more deadly, depending on circumstances.
That the primary use of a gun is to destroy life is without question. I won’t argue the point, like some pro-gun folks will, that a guns primary use as a line of defense is deterrence. Hogwash. I’ve got nothing to hide, and no reason to lie or deceive. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold, with the primary purpose being to cause death. Sure, there are LOTS of folks who use them strictly for pleasure, a day at the range, or even a day shooting bottles in the woods. There are also many people who use them for competitions, 3 gun, USPSA, NRA long rifle, there are numerous tournaments and competitions for firearms. But these are secondary. The primary and original purpose was and is, to cause death, and to avoid that and dance around it, only hurts the pro-gun movement, and does nothing to further it.
There are so many reasons to be anti gun control, that it’s difficult to know exactly where to begin, so I’ve decided to start with history. Since the dawn of time, since groups of cavemen went to war by throwing rocks at one another, man has had three primary uses for any weapon he has developed. First, to provide food. Second, to defend against attackers. Third, to be the attacker, and take that which other people have claimed for themselves. And almost as long as these tenets have been in place, those in power have sought to disarm those they rule over in order to provide security for their rule. Even before firearms, there are numerous examples or a tyrannical ruling body seeking to disarm, or keep unarmed, a populace that was unhappy with their rule. This is the reason that so many weapons we see today in the Asian derived martial arts are transformed versions of what were once farming implements.
In more modern times, we have examples like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot to look at. I’m not going to be your history teacher, if you want specifics, you should look each of them up and how they relate to gun control. But one thing they had in common is that all of them used one form or another of gun control to disarm a civilian populace in order to solidify their reign. Lenin said “one man with a gun can control 100 without a gun” and it’s true. And so, the one surefire, foolproof way to prevent our government from sliding into a more tyrannical rule is to remain an armed and aware populace. Currently the US is most well-armed civilian population on the planet. This isn’t even close. There is no real “second place” in a comparison of this sort and the US would be in first second and third if there was. We have guns, lots of them, and the government knows it, and every other government knows it as well. If it weren’t for the fact that our civilian population has more small arms than our military, I’m convinced that “taxation without representation” would be far more rampant than it already is (and that’s saying a lot…)
Our forefathers were no fools. There is a reason they wrote the second amendment to include the right to bear arms. Corrupt men unopposed only become more corrupt. An armed population provides a counterpoint that is undeniable and always present.
As much as I hate to take sides on the liberals vs conservatives debate (one is as evil as the other if you ask me) The liberals want to tell you what to do. It is their belief that they, and only they, should decide what is best for you, your kids, and the general populace. They want to take what you have, and give it to the less fortunate. They want to protect you from yourself and from your neighbors. They want to put you in a safe little bubble over which they have total control so that you can lead a full and rich life exactly as they define it. The one thing stopping them is guns. So, while they whittle away at all your other rights a little at a time. While they try to tell you what you can and can not hear on the radio or what is or is not acceptable for you to display on your lawn, they are always, and always have been, trying to take your guns away. Realistically, such an undertaking is massive. Insane. Though hard to determine positively, it is widely accepted that there are roughly 9 guns for every 10 people in the US, man woman and child. That’s over 300 million LEGAL guns in this country. Taking them all away is a ridiculous undertaking to even attempt, so don’t worry, the US government isn’t going to show up at your house looking to take away your legally owned guns any time soon, to think they will is silliness, the logistics are just too staggering to understand. But, they can do their best to convince people that don’t have one, not to buy one. They can get a handful to give the one they have up or to turn it in to a police department for destruction. They can create legislation that makes you hop skip and jump through so many hoops to get one, that only the most determined would ever buy one. They can create tarrifs and regulations that make it so expensive to produce or import them, that the cost makes it prohibitive for most people. And by doing these things, they can, slowly, whittle away at the number of armed citizens in the US. You don’t have to disarm an entire populace to control it, just enough of them to be an insignificant threat. So remember that when the debate comes up, and don’t let your congressman or senator pass any laws that inhibit your ability to become or remain, an armed citizen.
Of course, the sportsmen’s debate also comes up every time I talk about gun control. People will say they provide food for their families with their hunting rifles or shotguns. Silly argument, because then they’ll just want your handguns. Just? I don’t think so. Personally, my handguns are for the protection of my family. A hunting rifle is a piss poor substitute in this situation. It’s dangerous to be wielding indoors, in hallways and doorways. Its rounds will easily penetrate the human body at indoor ranges (typically 7yds maximum) and continue right on through any walls in the immediate vicinity to endanger the lives of anyone on the other side of said walls. So to those who would defend gun rights by claiming they should be able to keep their rifles for hunting. Shut up. You’re not helping anyone, not even yourselves.
The other side of the sportsmens debate is nothing short of laughable. Semi-automatics, ie “black guns”. You can’t take them away, I hunt with them. OK. What do you hunt? Varmints? Reasonable. Understandable. But a .22 or even better, a .17hmr is a much cheaper and just as effective solution to any varmint problem. So do you hunt large game? Shame on you. I’m not a newcomer to ballistics and bullet makeup and penetration. Hunting anything larger than say, a coyote, with a .223 is irresponsible. The difference in energy imparted between a 308 and a .223 at 200 yards is no joke. I’m not saying the .223 isn’t deadly, but it’s much less of a sure thing when compared to a 308 a 30-06 or any other purpose designed hunting cartridge, and the bigger your game gets, the more and more this holds true. I believe you should be allowed to own an AR-15, an SKS or any one of a dozen semi-automatic rifles classified by the government as “assault rifles” (nice propaganda that there) But I don’t hide behind some BS like, “my ar-15 is my hunting rifle”. First, if you want to just hunt, buy a Remington 30-06, scope it and go hunt. It’s cheaper than an AR-15 and has a dozen different purpose designed cartridges to meet your hunting needs. If you want to own an AR-15 for plinking, varmint clearing or just because you believe it is your right to do so, then just say so. I’m with you, I believe you have the right to own one too, but again, not being straight forward doesn’t do anyone any good.
The one argument that is inevitable, is the number of gun related deaths in the US on a yearly basis. Liberals will simply tell you the numbers, which I’ll admit are high, and then say “there, that’s why we need stricter gun control laws”, this is inevitably the first thing a liberal will try in order to convince you that gun control is a good thing. To the uninformed, seeing those numbers can be convincing all on their own. Which is why I recommend you inform yourself. Of the guns deaths each year in the US, 97% are related to use of an illegal firearm. The guns criminals use were obtained illegally in the first place, and thinking that taking guns away from legally armed citizens will prevent gun deaths caused by illegally owned and obtained guns is just plain asinine. It’s like thinking that declawing the lions you have in captivity will prevent the lions in the wild from killing more gazelle. It’s just ridiculous to even consider as a possibility, yet somehow, they think this is a valid argument. Also, the fact remains that cancer kills FAR more people in the US every year than guns. If they put half the effort into curing cancer that they’ve put into trying to disarm legally armed citizens, we might be just a hair closer to a cure or a better way to fight it, prevent it, or slow it down.
What about the accidental deaths they’ll say, what about the innocent children that die each year? It’s true, innocent children die every year due to gun related accidents. These deaths are a tragedy, but an avoidable one. First, the parents are responsible. You can call me a cold hearted bastard. You can cry about how your so-and-so’s son/nephew/cousin died in an accident involving a firearm in the home. I’ll simply tell you this, the gun owner was at fault, not the gun. When I was a child, my parents didn’t hide the guns away and make them a mystery I was determined to investigate. Instead, my father would break them down, and clean them in my presence. He’d explain each part, and what it did, show me how the gun came apart and went back together. He’d explain how the gun worked, and what the bullet did, and of course, how dangerous it was if improperly used. He displayed them in a gun cabinet in the open (locked, but visible behind glass doors). He basically removed all the mystery and fascination from them, thereby removing my natural childs curiosity. Kids that die in an accident know as much about guns as they’ve learned from TV. Mom and/or dad keep the gun in a drawer or in a closet, hidden away, and never talk about it. When a child stumbles across it, their natural curiosity kicks in and bad things happen, because these same uninformed people don’t keep the gun in a safe, or they don’t use a cable lock on it, and they leave it where a curious child can find it. That makes them negligent, it makes them responsible, and in my opinion, it makes them criminal. I have loaded guns in my home. My children have all seen them, they know about them, they know how they work, and they know what they can do if improperly handled. Education, of the owner and the child, is the simplest solution to avoiding accidental gun deaths in the home.
Don’t get me started on gun shows, waiting periods and the NRA. These things all irk me to no end. The NRA does a lot of good for gun rights, the pour tens of millions of dollars into lobbying in favor of gun rights, and they’re probably the only reason the liberals haven’t managed to take away our 2nd amendment rights. But those people are insane. Or they’re genius. They approach gun rights the same way PETA approaches animal rights, with an extremism and a twistedness that is spectacular. Personally, as a gun owner, I feel that the NRA, while helping me in Washington, does nothing to help my case in the eyes of the general populace. Charlton Heston for example, was a quack. Ted Nugent is headed down the same road. I believe in our second amendment rights, but those are two individuals are not representative of the average American gun owner.
Waiting periods? Why do so many pro-gun activists have a problem with a waiting period? I just don’t understand. If I decide I want a gun, whether it be a long gun, or a handgun, I’m not going to make that decision the same day that I “need” the gun. There are only three reasons I could fathom for needing a firearm NOW instead of tomorrow or a few days from now. First – I have been invited to go hunting with my buddies, and they’re leaving today for the weekend. Well, if you don’t have a hunting rifle already, then you’re obviously not a hunter, which means you need to sit your ass down in a hunter safety course before you go anywhere anyhow. I don’t want you in the woods with me until you’ve been to one, and most states require it now anyhow, so while we wait for you to attend, that is a perfect time for you to not complain about a waiting period. Second – my life is in danger, and I need to protect myself. Some, not all, but some, states actually have a provision for this. If you can prove imminent danger to you or your family, they will waive the waiting period, and provide a temporary permit for the weapon. Once the period passes, you are still required to go through the normal processes for firearms owernership. Third – I intend to commit a crime, and I need a gun for my *insert violent crime here*. Great, thanks for sharing, go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, and don’t forget to give bubba a kiss on your way in.
And last, of course, gun shows. I love a good gun show. I love the deals that can be had. And I hate that nut jobs can buy guns here and do so without having to go through almost any of the normal hoops. First, this last is only true in certain states now. I’ll tell you, how they handle it here in NC is how it should work everywhere. The vendors can now do instant background checks right at the counters, so if you’re purchasing a long gun, you don’t have to wait long at all before you can take home your shiny new purchase and start practicing on milk jugs and watermelons. But here, if you want to buy a handgun, you go to the sheriff, you fill out a form, and they process that form and provide you with a single “purchase permit” that you can hang on to for 3 years, or you can run out and buy a gun the same day you get the permit. Receiving the permit takes a few days, my wife got hers after 4 days, I got mine after a week (hey, what’s THAT all about!?!) So if you have such a permit, you can purchase a handgun at the gun shows here and be on your merry way. Gun shows always have schedules out in advance, so it’s really not difficult to plan ahead and get your permit before the show dates. People who “legally” purchase a handgun on one of the states that makes it so easy, then use that gun to harm someone else, only help make things more difficult for the rest of us. If you’re a law abiding citizen that purchases guns at gun shows who is against some of the gun show legislation out there, you need to ask yourself why you’re so against it if you’ll still be able to purchase, and if it help keeps the guns out of criminal hands (which in the end gives liberals less excuses to try and take them out of my hands and yours) isn’t for the better in the end?
In short, I’m a firm believer in my second amendment rights, I also believe in the right to carry concealed WITH the proper permit (law abiding citizens should never have a problem with proper licensing for handguns). Liberals can say what they want, but at heart, criminals are cowards, and if they know my house occupied by a gun owner, they’re going to move along to a home they consider a safer target. By the same standard, if more people were armed, legally, there would be less targets for crime, and if more criminals were shot in the course of a crime by a legally armed citizen, there’s a good chance, more would be criminals might think twice about changing their career paths. But, take guns away from the people who own them legally and use them responsibly, and not only does the government feel less inhibited, but the criminals feel less threatened, because they’ve still got their illegally obtained guns, and with no fear of retribution, they’ll put them to use even more frequently than they do now.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Its time we made some changes around here.
In my last post, the question was offered “is there a non-violent way to turn things around”. I was going to respond, and realized, this is a good question for a post all its own. This is a question that deserves an honest answer, but before I do, since I’m not a fan of being hauled off in the night, let me point something out to anyone who may at any point, ever, read this post
So, do I believe it is too late to save our country from the corruption of our current political system without violence? That’s not an easy question to give a straightforward answer to. The answer of any politician, naturally, would be something like “of course. If the people vote the right folks into office, we can institute change in the way our system works and get our country back on track.”
That politician neglects to tell you that the only people who have the power to make the necessary changes to our government are the very same people who share responsibility for it being this way in the first place, and the chances that they’d ever vote for the required changes are, well, nil. The logical response then, would be, lets vote in the right people who would indeed be willing to enact those changes. Again, a stumbling block. The only people who would be willing to make the drastic changes necessary moving forth, are not career politicians, they would be citizens whose primary concern is the country, not their wallet. So how do we get those people into office? You don’t. In most states, getting on the ballot as a senator or a congressman is difficult at best, expensive, time consuming and nigh impossible at worst. The average citizen does not have the necessary resources, whether it be time, money or manpower (some states require a massive number of signatures to get on the ballot, and getting those signatures takes a lot of manpower) to get on the ballot in the first place. Then, do they have the money to run a campaign so people even know who the heck they’re voting for? Not likely, nor likely they have the time either. If they lose, they’d still need to maintain their job, which means they can’t exactly quit and hit the campaign trail.
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
With that noted, I’ll point out that the enemies of our nation are mine as well, so I’ve obviously no desire to give them aid nor comfort. I’ll also note that I’m not levying anything against anyone, I’m just stating my opinion. Exercising my 1st amendment rights, as it were.So, do I believe it is too late to save our country from the corruption of our current political system without violence? That’s not an easy question to give a straightforward answer to. The answer of any politician, naturally, would be something like “of course. If the people vote the right folks into office, we can institute change in the way our system works and get our country back on track.”
That politician neglects to tell you that the only people who have the power to make the necessary changes to our government are the very same people who share responsibility for it being this way in the first place, and the chances that they’d ever vote for the required changes are, well, nil. The logical response then, would be, lets vote in the right people who would indeed be willing to enact those changes. Again, a stumbling block. The only people who would be willing to make the drastic changes necessary moving forth, are not career politicians, they would be citizens whose primary concern is the country, not their wallet. So how do we get those people into office? You don’t. In most states, getting on the ballot as a senator or a congressman is difficult at best, expensive, time consuming and nigh impossible at worst. The average citizen does not have the necessary resources, whether it be time, money or manpower (some states require a massive number of signatures to get on the ballot, and getting those signatures takes a lot of manpower) to get on the ballot in the first place. Then, do they have the money to run a campaign so people even know who the heck they’re voting for? Not likely, nor likely they have the time either. If they lose, they’d still need to maintain their job, which means they can’t exactly quit and hit the campaign trail.
Next problem, let’s say you manage to find a way to get on the ballot, and you find a way to run a sufficient campaign to get elected. Now you’ve got to do it (guessing here) about 240 more times. The House has 435 members, and I’m sure not 100% of them are scum of the earth corrupt politicians. I figure if you could put a large enough number of “real people” in Congress, say about 200, the real good guys would come out of hiding and help make the needed changes happen, same for the senate, I estimate maybe 40 votes needed to convince another 26 to lend their votes.
Can this be done? Realistically. Not without some very deep pockets lending a hand. If somehow, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates got on board and started funding campaigns, sure, you could find the districts with the worst of the worst *cough*BarneyFrank*cough* and replace them with middle class folks who know the score and are willing to fight to change the country.
But otherwise, in short, no. Without violence, we are doomed to continue down our current path of corrupt politics and bloated bureaucracy with little to no change that has any real effect on the majority of citizens. We are the modern Rome, in every sense of the meaning. The past decade has proved that our president is near powerless. All the real power lies in the Senate and the House. The Supreme Court wields a fair amount of power, but even though the president makes the appointments, the Senate can disapprove of any given appointee. The presidents last real power is the veto (which can STILL be overruled), which if you ask me, isn’t used nearly enough with some of the crazy shit our Senate and House pull off. He also has the “executive order” which I suppose can create some smaller changes without a fight in the Congress.
So, when the day for change finally comes, I do not believe it can happen without violence. But, I do believe it can happen without total chaos ensuing. Before such an uprising should ever occur, a few things would need to be in place BEFORE hand, in order to assure a smooth transition with minimal negative impact on the people.1. A new constitution would need to be drawn up beforehand. Some of the things that need to be changed exist in the very heart of our original constitution. A good draft would remain true to the basics of the original, but would be altered to include term limitations on both branches of the Congress, as well as elimination of the Electoral College. In addition, provisions would need to be made to more strongly assure enforcement of some of the regulations imposed in the original which are more or less ignored in present day, for example, Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution includes the following line:
a. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. – This is huge IMHO. Notice it states INHABITANT, not “resident” (residence merely you maintain a residence in the state in question, and pay your state taxes to that state). Common sense dictates this means you need to physically be within the state that elects you, most likely, to help you better understand the residents of that state, and their particular needs as they relate to, and can be impacted by, your position in Congress. This also prevents congress from becoming tighter knit with each other than with their own constituents, which eventually creates the system of internal corruption we see today. Almost no Representatives or Senators (section 3 makes the same statement in reference to Senators) spend a majority of time in their own home states, most instead residing in DC or the surrounding suburbs.
2. The original Bill of Rights should be included in the new Constitution, with minor wording changes to make undeniably clear for all time, the intent of each article. With the Bill of Rights being part of the initial constitution instead of a series of initial amendments, they would be basically become untouchable by later amendments (and the wording of said constitution would make this clear). Clarifying and SIMPLE language would mean no more arguments over something as simple as a comma, as we frequently see with the second amendment and our right to keep and bear arms. And no more debating "intent" as we see with several other early amendments.
3. Amendments to the constitution would require not only a vote from the Senate and House, but also a review by the Supreme Court to determine if it infringes on any other rights prior to being passed. Wording should e clear and simple to avoid any and all confusion in the future over the intent of the writers. They should also address only a single subject per amendment, and be limited in size so as not to make reading and understanding them impossible for the general populace. The intent being, that any high school graduate with a basic knowledge or reading, be able to read each amendment in it's entirety and udnerstand his or her rights without having to consult a lawyer. The constitution would also make arrangements for each state to have a Federal Court panel that would review the constitutionality of all laws passed at the state level (CA, MA, NYC % Chicago gun laws anyone? Shall not be infringed? These states/city’s stomp all over the 2nd amendment rights, they don’t just infringe on them) In order to prevent abuses at the state level at a later time.
4. A Declaration would need to be drawn up to clarify all grievances against our current government. I wouldn’t refer to it though as a “declaration of independence”. I don’t think anyone is seeking separation or independence from the United States. I think the purpose would be a removal of the current government, to be replaced with a new government properly restricted from infringing on the rights of the people, and indeed, designed specifically with the intent to PROTECT those rights by contrast. However, I believe the original document is, quite literally, the most important document ever written, and would certainly make for a good base, for the general points that it makes.
5. Provisions (most likely in the constitution?) need to be made allowing for complete and total transparency of all government actions. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but our government has, at times, acted with a level of secrecy that indicated it had something to hide from the people of the united states, which undermines the very meaning of the statement “of the people, by the people, for the people” Sometimes I believe this secrecy was intended to “protect” the general populace from the fact that occasionally bad things have to be done for good to prevail in the end. In these modern times, I do not believe this is necessary, and in fact, I believe much of this behavior, regardless of intent, has bred a certain level of distrust between the people and the government, hence why conspiracy theories run rampant. In my own humble opinion, I think there should be a reporter present with the president at ALL times during which he is conducting state business. There should be no “secret meetings”. This reporter should be under the confines of a specially written NDA that prevents disclosure of any military operations that would endanger the lives of any US citizen until such mission had been completed, but only until then. Names of any service members involved in such operations would be restricted, but only the names (to prevent any potential terrorist retribution against an individual) Violation of said NDA would be considered treason, period. Cameras should be installed in every Congressional office, and similar reporters assigned to various committees, and agencies. This accomplishes several things. It lets people know how their elected officials are carrying out the business they elected them to take care of, and it helps create responsibility and accountability. It’s sad to say, but human nature is such, that without transparency, without threat of being punished for ones actions, a person is most likely to do whatever benefits himself the most rather than whatever benefits those around him (there are, obviously, exceptions to this, but do you want to take the chance that every official you elect is that exception?) I also believe that at their core, most people have it in them to do the right thing, and when confronted and forced into making a choice “publically” most will do so.
6. With the technology we have today, I’d like to see a system that involves all constitutional amendments going up for a vote by the people once passed through the House and Senate and not Vetoed by the President or Supreme Court (see above). Remember, our government was designed in the late 1700’s. In those times, It could take days, and sometimes weeks to travel between one’s home state and the capital. So it was extremely prohibitive to put literally anything to a national vote. Instead, most votes were at the state level, and the representatives did literally that, represent. Now, though, we can have, with a very small margin of error, a vote of millions, nationwide, and get a tally by the next morning. Our old system worked in an old world. We no longer live in that world, and we shouldn’t hold on to customs and methods which can be made better if adapted to a modern world.
7. Restrictions would need to be in place on moneys spent on political campaigns, the middle class makes up the vast majority of this country, yet we have literally no representation in Washington, because the costs of a campaign just to get into office fall well outside the range of the middle class. Also, lobbying efforts, and “special interests” would need to be addressed, as would the fact that we have a senate or house committee for everything under the sun. Bureaucracy needs to be severely curbed, and this would be a good place to start.
8. Government regulations should be minimalized. True capitalism should be allowed. If someone creates a monopoly in a free market system, they’ve obviously managed to do so because they are providing a service or product that a majority of persons either need or want. If they abuse that, then the free market system would dictate that the best answer is for someone else to offer a more attractive option. A perfect example of how this truly does, and can work, especially in today’s high speed information age, is the recent debit card fees proposed at BoA. It was government regulation in the first place that caused the fee to be suggested for implementation. But it was a public reaction and backlash that prevented it. Less regulation and more free market = more consumer power. Similarly, the FCC serves as an excellent resource to prevent two radio stations from transmitting on the same frequency in the same area. In this regard, their purpose is clear, and necessary. But, infringing on the 1st amendment is not. If a radio station wants to have potty mouthed DJ’s on all day long, let them. If people want to listen, that is their choice, the channel can be changed. If you don’t want your kids to hear it, THEN DON’T PUT THE STATION ON. If no one listens to the station, they won’t get advertising revenues, and they’ll go under. Simple as that. But there’s no reason your prudishness should prevent me from listening to smut if I want to, especially if you have the option not to listen. As a last note, government bailouts of any private sector business should be irreversibly forbidden. We might have suffered a depression if the banks had failed recently, instead we’re “only” going through a recession, but it’s one without any current light at the end of the tunnel, and now we might end up in a depression anyhow depending on what happens with the greeks and the European union. Instead, the banks should have been allowed to fail, and that bailout money should have been pumped into the economy to help things get back on an even keel.
9. ALL levels of government require accountability. Nowadays, someone abuses the power given to him by the people, and he resigns and it just goes away, or he just “denies these horrific allegations that have been made against me” pays someone off, and it goes away (usually to not return until several elections later at the worst possible moment). Either way, there are no consequences for abusing the trust of the people. There NEEDS to be punishment. Without threat of retribution, people have little incentive to do the right thing unless it is in their best interest. This kind of goes along with section 5 above.
10. Compensation for government service needs to be severely curbed. For the last several decades, congressional pay has far outstripped our national inflation, while everyone else’s earnings have not. When the country isn’t doing well, they vote themselves a raise (really!?! In what other job, ever, other than owning your own company, do you get to give yourself a raise without the permission of the people that PAY YOU!?!?) My suggestion is that both senators and representatives be paid based on the average salary of the US Citizen, to include those unemployed as earning 0 instead of what they pull in on unemployment. You want a good economy and low unemployment? Pay the House and Senate based on those factors, and you can be damned sure they’ll be working in your best interest when it comes to anything job or economy related. Also, the Senate and House have the best health care in the world, because they gave it to themselves (while conveniently excluding themselves from Obama care…. Wow... just, wow…) Not only that, but they get those benefits, and full pay retirement benefits for LIFE even if they only serve one term. I would suggest that with term limitations, should also come an elimination of any possible retirement pay from Senate or House service, instead, payments can be made into a 401K or IRA just like everyone else, and if you don’t have one already, one can be started for you for that purpose. As for health care, I believe ALL, as in each and every one, of federal government employees should receive the same health care. Yes, that includes our soldiers. This would have one of three possible results. First option, Senators and Representatives would get Tri Care and go through the awesomeness that our military families have to deal with, co pays and all. Second option, the entire military gets the same insanely awesome and totally free health care benefits currently given to our Senators and Representatives. Third option, a middle ground is found, and federal employees, military included, are provided health care not unlike what the average American already receives, this is what I would think to be most likely and the most reasonable option.
That’s just the basis for a beginning, if anyone ever were to wipe the slate clean, and start fresh with a new government. This only addresses the core of our government, and not so much the rest of the mind boggling morass that is the United States of Bureaucracy. And of course, these are just my opinions on how to change some of the things that have caused us to get where we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)