Did you happen to notice all the hullabaloo over a couple of gun stores offering to sell a new "smart" gun? It seems that the gun lobbies and NRA and gun rights enthusiasts and 2nd amendment freedom fighters really got stirred up over such a horrible attack on their rights. You got it, the folks who demand the right to have guns are dead set against guns. The safe kind.
Apparently the right to keep and bare arms applies only to firearms that can be fired by anyone, including small children who find them in closets or under beds or criminals who steal them. But guns that are made to make it impossible for those children or those criminals to use them are contrary to that 2nd amendment and a grave danger to those rights to own and carry firearms.
My understanding is that by allowing these guns to be sold, our government can somehow deny anyone and everyone from owning any firearms at all. Or that the government can somehow keep a registry of gun owners because of these guns, though I'm not sure how these guns alone can accomplish that.
But there must be some way for these "smart" guns to do all this damage to our rights, because the two gun shop owners who had decided to sell these "smart" guns, one in California and one in Maryland, have received threats against their stores and their lives by a large number of irate citizens and the NRA (notice, the NRA is the bullying lobby of the gun manufacturers association).
So what we have here is the folks who care most deeply about our right to keep and bare arms, only want us to keep and bare the arms they alone approve of. And when it comes to any gun that's smarter than them, they definitely do not approve. And that makes all the sense in the world if your world is smaller than a mustard seed.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Fraud Was Not With The Voters
With all the other important stuff happening, like the ring George Clooney gave his fiancée or how long soldiers can have their hair or the fact that GIs can't have tattoos, you may have missed the fact that the Supreme Court got one right for a change. That is to say, the justices saw through a number of states' attempts to limit voting rights for the purpose of gaining voting advantages for their party. What caught these states was the fact that the phony reason for the limiting of voter rights to eliminate voter fraud, was in fact a fraud.
The states in question could not show a single case of voter fraud that their laws would have prevented. But the laws would have prevented thousands of legitimate voters from exercising their rights. So, okay, what does it all mean? It means that about 20 or so states that had similar laws are done for. Not the states, but those laws are history in all but name. They'll all be taken to court and reversed, and good riddance.
These laws were and are transparently anti-minority, anti-Democratic and completely unfair. Look at Pennsylvania for further proof, where the speaker of the Republican led house stated publically that it's law made it possible for Romney to win the state. Fortunately a state Appeals Court justice struck it down before the 2012 election.
What America needs most is some way to get more people to vote in elections, not fewer. When elections are decided by subterfuge rather than majority votes, we lose the last vestige of freedom we have. We can little afford to give up this last opportunity to exercise that freedom by allowing money and power to engineer elections in their favor.
The states in question could not show a single case of voter fraud that their laws would have prevented. But the laws would have prevented thousands of legitimate voters from exercising their rights. So, okay, what does it all mean? It means that about 20 or so states that had similar laws are done for. Not the states, but those laws are history in all but name. They'll all be taken to court and reversed, and good riddance.
These laws were and are transparently anti-minority, anti-Democratic and completely unfair. Look at Pennsylvania for further proof, where the speaker of the Republican led house stated publically that it's law made it possible for Romney to win the state. Fortunately a state Appeals Court justice struck it down before the 2012 election.
What America needs most is some way to get more people to vote in elections, not fewer. When elections are decided by subterfuge rather than majority votes, we lose the last vestige of freedom we have. We can little afford to give up this last opportunity to exercise that freedom by allowing money and power to engineer elections in their favor.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Everybody's Got An Opinion On Climate Science.
The New York Times has a couple of questions for you this morning. First question: What Does Today Owe Tomorrow? Second question: What have future generations done for us? The first is the title of an article in the Science section and the article mentions the second as having been a banner hanging from a highway overpass.
So who asks these kinds of questions? Turns out economists are some of the folks that do. But before they have anything to say, they consult with physical scientists to come up with likelihoods of various possibilities. Then the economists try to figure out the best way to treat climate change. As you might guess, the final recommendations vary from do nothing to stop everything. Although either way is not recommended by many. Mainly the outlooks range in the middle and do suggest placing a price on carbon emissions, but a small price.
Of course there are those who answer the second question first. Future generations have done nothing for us, so far. That answer makes it easy for those folks to answer the first question. If future generations have done nothing for us, then we don't owe them anything either. That's a self fulfilling approach to the questions. If we don't bother to help future generations, then if those generations are still around in the future, they won't treat us too kindly.
For many people, how some future society talks about us is of little interest. But most people would still prefer to do the right thing. For their neighbors and for their heirs. Anyway, it's a thought provoking article and unless you don't plan on doing anything for the generations of the future, I highly recommend this short article. Just allow a little time, then, to give it some thought.
So who asks these kinds of questions? Turns out economists are some of the folks that do. But before they have anything to say, they consult with physical scientists to come up with likelihoods of various possibilities. Then the economists try to figure out the best way to treat climate change. As you might guess, the final recommendations vary from do nothing to stop everything. Although either way is not recommended by many. Mainly the outlooks range in the middle and do suggest placing a price on carbon emissions, but a small price.
Of course there are those who answer the second question first. Future generations have done nothing for us, so far. That answer makes it easy for those folks to answer the first question. If future generations have done nothing for us, then we don't owe them anything either. That's a self fulfilling approach to the questions. If we don't bother to help future generations, then if those generations are still around in the future, they won't treat us too kindly.
For many people, how some future society talks about us is of little interest. But most people would still prefer to do the right thing. For their neighbors and for their heirs. Anyway, it's a thought provoking article and unless you don't plan on doing anything for the generations of the future, I highly recommend this short article. Just allow a little time, then, to give it some thought.
Monday, April 28, 2014
The ACA Or Obamacare.
What do you think about Obamacare? Well, what do you think about the Affordable Care Act? Which do you think is better? I know, I know, they're the same thing. But the problem is, there are a lot of people who don't know it or won't admit it, so they hate Obamacare and like the ACA. It looks like Republicans in Washington are careful not to mention the fact that they're the same. I suppose if you're trying to make something look bad, you give it a name, or nickname, that you can beat up on without looking too foolish.
So U.S. Representatives keep voting to overturn Obamacare. Actually they're trying to overturn the ACA, but they keep calling it Obamacare. That's because there is no such law as Obamacare to overturn. Now these good politicians know that, but they also know that a lot of folks like a lot of what the ACA has to offer. But if they keep calling it something else long enough and often enough they know that loads of people will think there is actually a difference. And if there is a difference, and they don't know what Obamacare is, they're automatically gonna dislike the one they don't know anything about.
The silly thing is the politicians they're listening to, don't really know what their talking about either. At least many of them don't. They just know that if they accept the ACA, they might give the other side some advantage. Ya see? That's what it's all about. Political advantage. It really doesn't mean much more than that. Now, truth be told, the ACA does need some changes and improvements and if these politicians were to spend half as much time fixing it, it'd turn out great.
But there's that advantage thing staring them in the face. Well, that and all that soft money and hard money and corporate money and all that other money nobody's supposed to know where it comes from, even though pretty much everybody does know.
So U.S. Representatives keep voting to overturn Obamacare. Actually they're trying to overturn the ACA, but they keep calling it Obamacare. That's because there is no such law as Obamacare to overturn. Now these good politicians know that, but they also know that a lot of folks like a lot of what the ACA has to offer. But if they keep calling it something else long enough and often enough they know that loads of people will think there is actually a difference. And if there is a difference, and they don't know what Obamacare is, they're automatically gonna dislike the one they don't know anything about.
The silly thing is the politicians they're listening to, don't really know what their talking about either. At least many of them don't. They just know that if they accept the ACA, they might give the other side some advantage. Ya see? That's what it's all about. Political advantage. It really doesn't mean much more than that. Now, truth be told, the ACA does need some changes and improvements and if these politicians were to spend half as much time fixing it, it'd turn out great.
But there's that advantage thing staring them in the face. Well, that and all that soft money and hard money and corporate money and all that other money nobody's supposed to know where it comes from, even though pretty much everybody does know.
Friday, April 25, 2014
It's All About Killing.
The truth is in. We now know just how dangerous, to birds, wind turbines truly are. The U.S. Forest service and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service as well as the Wildlife Society agree with the study done by Vestas Wind systems, a large wind turbine company. In the study, it shows that one in 10,000 birds are killed by wind turbines. The other causes, communications towers- 50, pesticides 710, vehicles- 850, cats- 1060, high tension lines- 1370, buildings/windows- 5820. So ya see? It's not those wind turbines, it's those damned homes with windows, and especially cats.
Now, it's true that the more wind turbines we build, the more birds they will kill. It's also true that the more buildings we build, the more cats we have, the more vehicles we make, oh you get the idea. I guess my point is that if you don't like wind turbines, you can find a silver lining in any bad news you hear. Hey, I'll bet hunters kill more birds than those turbines. But that doesn't mean you want to stop hunting. You may see some good coming from hunting that turbines don't give you.
But if you really don't want any more turbines killing birds, there is a solution to that problem. The solution is simple; stop using electricity, period. If there's no need for energy, then there's no need for energy producers. The other choice is to choose coal over wind. Then we can get back to killing people instead of birds. Ya see? There's always an answer to any problem. You just have to be willing to kill, one way or another. And of course the idea of doing away with electric needs is a bit preposterous. How would I post this important piece of literature without electricity to run my computer?
Now, it's true that the more wind turbines we build, the more birds they will kill. It's also true that the more buildings we build, the more cats we have, the more vehicles we make, oh you get the idea. I guess my point is that if you don't like wind turbines, you can find a silver lining in any bad news you hear. Hey, I'll bet hunters kill more birds than those turbines. But that doesn't mean you want to stop hunting. You may see some good coming from hunting that turbines don't give you.
But if you really don't want any more turbines killing birds, there is a solution to that problem. The solution is simple; stop using electricity, period. If there's no need for energy, then there's no need for energy producers. The other choice is to choose coal over wind. Then we can get back to killing people instead of birds. Ya see? There's always an answer to any problem. You just have to be willing to kill, one way or another. And of course the idea of doing away with electric needs is a bit preposterous. How would I post this important piece of literature without electricity to run my computer?
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Ya Just 'Can't Figure The IRS.
I was one who never grumbled at the IRS for targeting so called "Social Service organizations" for approval for tax exempt status. Most shouldn't have received the tax break. I admit I have always grumbled at paying any taxes, but I also have always understood the need. Those Social Service groups are, at least many of them, are nothing more than fronts for politicians and their grubbing for campaign cash. They're a bad joke.
And I never objected to the IRS for going after folks who didn't pay their fair share of taxes. But I have to say, that I do object to the IRS giving bonuses to it's own employees who owe back taxes. There were 1150 IRS employees who owed back taxes and got the bonuses anyway. And the year before there were 2800 employees who had faced disciplinary actions who got bonuses.
It sounds like the kind of place where almost anyone would love to work. Just think, you could decide not to pay your taxes, sluff off on the job, tell your boss where to go, do poor work and still get a bonus. Most places would let you go for any one of those crimes against humanity. But the IRS seems to reward such behavior.
I guess my parents were wrong. They always told me to work hard, do your best, be respectful of your superiors and all that. But it sounds like that doesn't matter at some government institutions. I wonder if a person would be penalized for good behavior? I can see it now; being called into the bosses office and told "you're fired", because you were pleasant on the phone with a taxpayer who had a question.
Still it's somewhat a leap of faith to go from being a "not so good" employee, to getting your bonus in spite of all that you've done. And it's not just a small bonus, they totaled around $2.8 million in one year for those do-badders. That averages out to be a thousand $$$ each. I wonder what the good workers made? That would determine whether doing you best is worth the bother.
And I never objected to the IRS for going after folks who didn't pay their fair share of taxes. But I have to say, that I do object to the IRS giving bonuses to it's own employees who owe back taxes. There were 1150 IRS employees who owed back taxes and got the bonuses anyway. And the year before there were 2800 employees who had faced disciplinary actions who got bonuses.
It sounds like the kind of place where almost anyone would love to work. Just think, you could decide not to pay your taxes, sluff off on the job, tell your boss where to go, do poor work and still get a bonus. Most places would let you go for any one of those crimes against humanity. But the IRS seems to reward such behavior.
I guess my parents were wrong. They always told me to work hard, do your best, be respectful of your superiors and all that. But it sounds like that doesn't matter at some government institutions. I wonder if a person would be penalized for good behavior? I can see it now; being called into the bosses office and told "you're fired", because you were pleasant on the phone with a taxpayer who had a question.
Still it's somewhat a leap of faith to go from being a "not so good" employee, to getting your bonus in spite of all that you've done. And it's not just a small bonus, they totaled around $2.8 million in one year for those do-badders. That averages out to be a thousand $$$ each. I wonder what the good workers made? That would determine whether doing you best is worth the bother.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Records Get Set And Broken.
Well, there ya have it. America is losing the race to keep it's middle class the highest paid in the world. America is now number 2 behind Canada, with several other countries closing in. Of course our wealthiest class is still way up there in good shape. But did you also know that our poor class is paid less than several European countries? Well they are. Our poor people are poorer than in some other countries. So at least we lead in some categories.
How is it though, that we think we excel compared to the rest of the world? Why do we think we're the best, but don't think our middle class and poor class should be paid as though they're the best? I think it's because the wealthy class thinks the reason we're the best is because of their efforts alone. If you or I were to accomplish something all by ourselves, we might not want to share the glory with someone we don't think is deserving.
So if you're the CEO and your company sets records in profits, why should you share those profits with the folks who made the products? The answer is, in most cases, you don't. It wasn't always like that. If you look back to America thirty, forty years ago, companies handled this kind of honor as an honor for all the employees.
But then somebody started the race. Some CEO probably started bragging about how much more he made than the next guy. Next thing you know, tax rates started to change for the better for the wealthy and worse for everybody else. Then, presto not long before we've lost our leadership in the pay scale for the middle class and poor but increased that pay scale for the rich. I wish I knew who that CEO was. I'd skin him alive and snake him bald headed.
How is it though, that we think we excel compared to the rest of the world? Why do we think we're the best, but don't think our middle class and poor class should be paid as though they're the best? I think it's because the wealthy class thinks the reason we're the best is because of their efforts alone. If you or I were to accomplish something all by ourselves, we might not want to share the glory with someone we don't think is deserving.
So if you're the CEO and your company sets records in profits, why should you share those profits with the folks who made the products? The answer is, in most cases, you don't. It wasn't always like that. If you look back to America thirty, forty years ago, companies handled this kind of honor as an honor for all the employees.
But then somebody started the race. Some CEO probably started bragging about how much more he made than the next guy. Next thing you know, tax rates started to change for the better for the wealthy and worse for everybody else. Then, presto not long before we've lost our leadership in the pay scale for the middle class and poor but increased that pay scale for the rich. I wish I knew who that CEO was. I'd skin him alive and snake him bald headed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)