Jump! Jump! Jump!

Pollytics always gives me a headache!

      So here we are, end of the year watching the same old song and dance.  Without immediate action on the part of our government, a whole gaggle of tax increases and spending cuts will snap into place.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be put at risk and the nation will probably fall back into a recession that we have just started crawling out of.  Imminent doom on a level even the Mayans never imagined.

     Our government, in its usual timely fashion, has refused to come to any sort of agreement.  Reboobicans blame the Damnocrats!  Liarberals blame the Teabeggars!  Everyone blames everyone else for not getting the job done.  Me, I cannot say which side is more responsible for this disaster.  I will leave that to more learned and more opinionated people to decide.  In my not so humble opinion, I will say it is both parties fault and leave it at that.

There are none so blind...

     (As a slight aside here, I do blame the Reboobicans slightly more than the Damnocrats for one simple reason.  

 http://news.yahoo.com/sinking-plan-b-u-fiscal-cliff-disaster-john-060405476--business.html

     Boehner came up with a compromise proposal that even old Grover N. agreed was an decent compromise.  You know Grover right, he's the "No tax increases forever" pledge guy.  He put it up and his own people (Teabeggars cough cough) shot him down before it could even be put to a vote.  Now admittedly Obama has already said he would veto the proposal if it got past, but if Boehner had managed to get it through, he would have been negotiating from a much stronger perch.  As is, his people shooting down his idea gave Obama and the Damnocrats even more ammunition.  Hence the reason I blame the Reboobicans slightly more than the Damnocrats.)

     Okay that was more than a slight aside but what the hey it is my blog.  So anyho, onward and downward.

     Both sides Know that this has to be done.  Both sides know damned well that the other side isn't going to agree to everything the other side wants.  Both sides know that disaster will occur if action isn't taken.  Neither side is willing to make any sort of real compromise.  They are more than willing to allow this train wreck to happen then blame the other side while they attempt to clean up the mess.  

     Watching our government "work" is like watching a bunch of cranky, constipated 5 year old children all trying to play on the same swing.  Everyone could play, everyone could be happy if they would just wait and take turns.  You know, compromise?  But instead, they stand around arguing, blaming the other kids for not letting them play and staying full  of poop.  

     So here we sit, dangling over a "fiscal cliff" watching the ground behind us crumble away.  Instead of doing something to save ourselves, we are contemplating just how much it is going to hurt when we hit the ground way below.  Will our so called leaders act in the eleventh hour to save us all or will we fall onto the metaphorical jagged rocks below?

Okay they said go this way.

     (Annd don't forget folks, we will reach our debt ceiling in just a few days too.  Gotta love those double whammies!) 

It comes in book form too.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AEH3A2Y

Like the Blog?  Buy the book!

Respect not greed.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/12/28/claim-seeks-100m-for-newtown-massacre-survivor

     Short but sweet rant here, folks.  As I expected, some industrious soul is attempting to file a lawsuit for 1 Million Bucks in the wake of the Newtown massacre.  In the name of their child, they are suing because they feel that the school did not take action to stop the shooting from happening.  They claim (and I truly believe) that their child has been horribly scarred by all of the violence that happened and because of this, she (They cough cough) deserves to be rewarded 1 million dollars.
     Now I wish I could truly believe that these people are doing it because they have their child's best interest at heart, but sorry I can't.  If this litigation is allowed to go through, then little Jill Doe will be forced to live through the events of that day again and again as it is battled out in the courts and in the news.  Instead of hopefully dealing with her rightful trauma and moving on, she will be trapped in it for months, maybe even years.
     To many Americans see litigation as their path to prosperity.  They sue over the drop of a hat in the hopes of being one of those people who receive a huge payoff.  They really don't care who their actions hurt as long as they get their payoff.
     IF I felt the school (or in the Batman shooting case the theater) had done anything wrong or negligent, then I could see some sort of legal action.  However, the school had all of the standard security of any school in most cities/towns.  Short of having armed trained security people on hand at every entrance (Which I am okay with) and metal detectors backed by friskings on top of that, there isn't much more the school could have done.
     Now moving forward, do we need to seriously rethink how we protect those who cannot protect themselves?  Absolutely.  Maybe there will be changes to School security in the future.  If the time comes when we do start taking into account that some madman might walk into a school and open fire, then and only then can I see lawsuits being launched.

End of rant

A Common Discourse for the greater good.

     Now pretty much everyone who has even glanced at my blogs knows that I tend towards humor even when discussing subjects of a serious nature.  I tend to try and defuse tension and combativeness with light asides and comedy.  In short, "I laugh so that I do not cry."
     No amount of humor or comedy can ease the shock and pain of the gruesome murder of so many people in Newtown, Con.  and I won't even try.  It has gotten me pondering the very volatile issue of gun control and gun safety.  After a very lively and sometimes heated discussion on FB last night, I am left thinking about a very simple issue.  Why is it so difficult for the Nation as a whole to discuss the subject of firearm control with any real sense of civility or logic?
     With the exception of Politicians who have become more and more silent on the issue, every time there is a horror such as the Theater Shootings or what happened in Newtown, both sides of the argument are (forgive the pun) up in arms.  Anti-gun advocates are screaming harsher and more restrictive gun laws with some even advocating making private ownership of firearms illegal.  Pro-gun advocates scream 2nd Amendment and that they have the right to own everything from  Guns up to Anti-tank weapons  (Okay maybe a minor exaggeration there).  The moderates who advocate intelligent gun control laws while allowing private citizens to own firearms are drowned out under the righteous indignation of the extremes.
     So why are we, as a society, unable to hold a rational discussion on the subject of gun control?  Extremes, as a general rule, are never correct.  Answers are most often found somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.  Unfortunately, the very nature of the beast promotes extreme views.
     As a nation, the only time you have a majority discussing firearm control vs personal rights is during tragedies such as the Newtown shootings.  As a whole, most people don't even think about gun control till they hear that some nutball walked into an area and killed people.  Once they hear of these horrors, they are rightfully horrified and shocked  over what happened.  They become afraid for their loved ones and angry that someone let this event happen. 
     Anger, fear, shock and confusion are powerful emotions.  However, they don't lend themselves well to any sort of rational thought.  They tend to drive us towards a Mob Mentality.  Groups are polarized into Absolutes with very little chance at finding a common ground. 
     We need to start a common discourse that isn't overshadowed by fear and anger.  I don't pretend to have all the answers.  Hell, like I always say, I don't even pretend to have all of the questions.  I believe that the private ownership of firearms is one  of the most basic rights promised to all law abiding citizens of the US.  I also believe that more should be done to protect our children and our people from the crazies that would do them harm.  There has to be an answer.  We just need to find out what it is.
     (Ordinarily this is where I would type "End of Rant,' but this piece wasn't intended as a rant.  I wasn't calling anyone out or criticizing anyone.  May whatever powers that be watch over the souls of those lost and be with the families who will never see their loved ones again on this Earth.  May God grant us the wisdom to find the answers we need to combat this growing issue.)

Crazy people will always do crazy things.

http://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-towns-schools-locked-down-following-shooting-report-153953370.html
     So once again some completely insane person has decided to end his life and in the process take as many other innocent lives as he can.  Children have been slaughtered in a place where they should feel and be safe.  The world looks on in horror as the death toll is tallied and wonders exactly what the fuck is wrong with America.
     And as usual, many people are blaming the tool not the person.  Commentators are crying for more gun control.  They ignore the thousands of responsible gun owners in the country who have never gone on a killing spree or committed any violent gun crime.  They ignore the fact that any person who would commit such a horrible crime would find a way to do it no matter what.  They preach, "Take away the guns and the killing will stop."
     Let me hit you with some factoids:

" According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year."

" In 2008 testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Medical Epidemiologist Dr. Leonard J. Paulozzi of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that in 2005 (the most recent year for which data was available) more than 22,000 American lives were lost due to overdoses, and the number is growing rapidly. Dr. Paulozzi also testified that all available evidence suggests that unintentional overdose deaths are related to the increasing use of prescription drugs, especially opioid painkillers."

 "Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States. Since a firearm is an inanimate object, it can not be the sole creator/ root cause of a death as it must be handled by a person in order to be fired.  A more accurate description is approximately 16,000 suicides using a firearm.  Approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities. USDOJ. National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009.   Approximately 600 justifiable defensive shootings by both police and citizens.  The remainder in accidental firearms discharges."

     So of these three examples, the number of fatalities is pretty close to equal.  Tens of thousands of people killed every year, but we only hear people crying out for the banning of one of the three examples.  Now I suppose you could argue that the Drug deaths shouldn't be included since it only effects the user.  Still I have to wonder how many of the drug related deaths are kids ODing because parents don't keep tighter control of their meds?
     Crazy and stupid people will always do crazy and stupid things.  A man will get behind the wheel of a 2000lb vehicle after drinking with his buddies even though he KNOWs that driving while drunk is stupid and dangerous.  All of the drunk driving laws introduced have never changed that.  People still pump themselves full of drugs even though they KNOW it is harmful to them and possibly the people around them.
     Nutjobs like the guy in the article above and the "Batman" shooter will always find some way to hurt themselves and the people around them.  If we ban guns, they will use knives.  If we ban knives, they will use bombs (Don't even get me started on the handy explosive uses of many common household items.) 
     Even with the stricter gun control laws we have, it is still ridiculously easy for someone to obtain a gun illegally.  If someone wants to commit gun violence especially on the scale described above, they will find someone to sell them what they need just like a drug addict will always find someone to give them their next fix.
     In the end, the only people that laws effect are the people that actually follow the laws.  This is why you never hear reports about the multitude of people in the US and around the world who DON"T walk into a school and kill children.  You don't see stories on responsible gun owners who don't dress up in armor and kill dozens of people in a theater.  Hell, someone getting tanked up on booze and plowing through a cafe window probably won't even make it past the headlines of a local paper.
     When I was growing up, my family was easily one of the best armed groups in Pike County.  We had rifles, shotguns, handguns and more ammo than the National Guard.  Not once in the 20 years I lived at home did anyone in my family go on a killing spree.  We don't need to control the guns.  We need to control the crazy people that might own them.  People preach about gun control, BUT if someone at that School had possessed a gun then maybe the death toll wouldn't have been so high.

"The best deterrent against someone with a gun is someone else with a gun."

End of Rant

Founding Principles Or Just what did they mean anyway?

Okay first some basic history about our Founders and their religious beliefs from Wikipedia:

“Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin. Others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism.”

For those who don't know what it is, here is the explanation of the Jefferson Bible, also from Wikipedia: “The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine. “ (BTW, this info is from Wikipedia, but there are literally dozens of historical studies on the subject.)

So, with this history lesson in mind, let's study the concept that the US was meant to be a Christian Nation by the Founding Father's. Even among the actual Christians, there was a vast variety of tenets and beliefs No Sect of Christianity is identical to another and some of them are radically different. So if the US was meant to be a Christian Nation, which Sect? Then take into account the fact that several weren't Christian at all. Deists recognize no religion or its tenets, merely holding faith that a benign Creator does exist.

Now the Declaration of Independence does mention God. Five times to be precise, but at no time does it state which God. Now given that the majority of the Founders were some form of Christian, it can be inferred that they meant the Christian God, but this never actually stated. Historians believe that this generalized wording for a Diety was because the Founders realized that America was destined to become a nation of many faiths.

Despite what most people seem to think, there is absolutely no mention of a God/Creator anywhere in the Constitution. The closest thing is the line at the end “in the year of our Lord...” which was a pretty standard wording at the time. Now combine this fact with the 1^st Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and you've pretty much don't have an argument for the US being intended as a Christian Nation.

Now having said all of that, (Believe me it was a mouthful) let me say this. I do believe that our Founding Fathers intended for the US to be built on the idea that there is a God watching over us, guiding us and hopefully showing us right from wrong. As a Christian myself, I believe that many of the teachings of Christ and his Father are well suited for the job. However, I also believe that trying to pass and enforce laws based solely on Christian teachings (DOMA, Anti-Abortion Laws etc.) is wrong. We are a Nation of many religions, cultures and races.

This one's bound to piss some people off

BACON!

So last night, my Brother posted an article that prompted a rousing discussion on Socialized Healthcare Pros and Cons. This conversation prompted one of my friends to ask, “What is wrong with Greed?” That question got my headparts to thinking. Is there anything inherently wrong with the concept of Greed? Is the desire for money, wealth and power, by the very nature of the beast, evil?

Now the direct concept of Government Sponsored Healthcare and various other services that “help those less fortunate” are based off Utopian concepts where everyone feels some sort of obligation to help everyone else. The idea is that Services will be offered at the lowest rates possible so that everyone can enjoy the same privileges as everyone else regardless of their social standing or income ratios. So Doctors, drug producers and insurance companies should be willing to charge bare minimums for profits and forgo major profits.

Smile darn you, this shift is funny!

The problem is that businesses are in the business of making money. They want to make as much money as they can from as little expense as possible. Business is not in any way Utopian in its drive. And unlike a lot of people who rail against capitalism, I am very much okay with that. That is how the Free Market System works. A business charges X amount for an object or service. If the public wants to pay that amount, then it sells. If the public isn't willing to pay that amount, then the business is either forced to reduce their profit margins or stop making the item.

As a system, this has worked pretty well for a very very long time. It prolly started when Ogg the caveman traded rocks for sticks to Oog the caveman. Oog wanted 5 rocks for two of his prime sticks. Ogg felt like 3 rocks for 2 sticks was more fair. When Oog insisted, Ogg prolly hit him on the head with one rock and took the sticks. See Capitalism at its best.

This country was founded on Greed. A bunch of middle aged White men felt that the government was charging them unfairly on their taxes. (The funny part is, Historical Scholars still debate if the taxes charged by Fat George were actually unfair when measured against taxes levied elsewhere.) This country was built on greed. (Sorry but the old Manifest Destiny is the living embodiment of greed to me. “We deserve to have the whole damned continent!”) The Industrial Revolution ran on the fuel of greed. Pretty much every aspect of modern life came about through some form of greed.

"I want money, lots and lots of money...

So is Greed inherently EVIL? Hell no! Just like any other philosophy/idea, it is neither good nor evil. Is it wrong for any Service provider to expect the most money possible for their services? No, because the very core of a Free Market System keeps the extremes in check. Gas prices are an excellent example of that. Not too long ago, Gas Producers tried boosting gas prices up past an amount that people were willing to pay. Consumers said, “Fudge that shift” and basically stopped driving. The Producers were forced to drop prices back to a level that consumers would pay (Still to high, but that is just my opinion) or not sell their products. In a FMS, greed is most often countered with reality.

Greed not Altruism is what drives the world. Companies produce a product/service as inexpensively as possible, then turn around and sell said product/service for as much as possible. Anyone not okay with that needs to step back into what I jokingly call reality. Now is it wrong for Acme Hogskinners Inc., LLC to make an inferior, dangerous Handy Dandy Auto-Hogskinner & Bottle Opener and then sell it to the public for Eleventy Billion Dollars knowing damned well that it will malfunction and skin the dogs too? Yes, absolutely. However, as long as Acme makes the HDAHBO as safe a product as possible, I have no problem with them charging as much as the market will bear. (Oh and the Bear Skinning Attachment for the HDAHBO is due out in the Spring) If Hog and Bear hunters don't like their prices, they will go to HOGCO instead and pay their lower prices.

Lessee I left my watch around here somewhere.

People always rag on Capitalism and Greed. They blame these two concepts for all the ills of the world. These ostriches (Yes I know Ostriches don't actually stick their heads in the sand) ignore the fact that they wouldn't have all of the amazing things in their lives without the ideas they preach against. Can we use a little more humanity in our lives? Yes. Could we all benefit from people caring more about their fellow man? Prolly. Is it fair to expect those who can produce to give up part of their goodies to benefit those who don't produce? Prolly not.

“So many people today cry, 'I deserve better! I deserve what others have!' but are not willing to make the efforts to earn what they wish. I posit that this idea of 'entitlement' is an anathema to the concept of growth. When people become unwilling to actually work towards the things that they wish and expect others to provide for them, Stagnation is the only possible outcome.”

End of Rant