I have been watching a lot of videos on YouTube lately. I have been watching a lot of videos with the arguments of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. I say Intelligent Design because that is what the "agnostic" term is for Creationism and that is what they want to call it. If that is what they want to call it, so be it, I'll play along.
I should point out that I am a big believer in science. I am not a believer in a specific God. Especially a God that has an inherent interest in the affairs of Man. I tend to believe that if there is a God(s), he/she/it is at best an interested observer. He doesn't have a particular interest in any particular one of us, anymore than a child would take a particular interest in a specific ant in his ant farm. He is likely to be more interested in the interactions among the ants, but the fate of any specific one is not really important to him. The concept of a specific God that takes and interest in the people of the Earth in the traditional sense is usually presented as benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. I just find too many contradictions in the actions, or lack of actions for that to make any sense to me. I am not going to get into details. That's not really what this post is about. This is really just to give you an idea of my perspective so that you might be able to appreciate where I am coming from. So let's not get into a "Is there a God" debate. There is no way convince a non-believer there is and a believer that there is not.
What I am interested in is that it seems that in the posts that I have watched on YouTube, there seems to be a war brewing. Evolutionists seem to think that IDists are trying to use the schools to teach religion violating the separation of church and state. IDists seem to think that Evolutionists are trying to lead people away from God for whatever nefarious reason. Andit seems that with relatively little exception, that you have to choose one or the other. There seems to be no common ground.
I guess I can't understand why it is that the two have to be mutually exclusive. Evolution doesn't purport to explain the beginning of the universe. It just claims to explain how life got to its current state. I've watched video upon video laying out each side's position. I think there is some pretty substantial evidence that Evolution is correct. I don't see much evidence from the ID side of the house that is compelling from a scientific perspective. This would be fine if it was still Creationism, but Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools because it is clearly religious and the separation of church and state prevents a specific religion from being promoted by government institutions. So Intelligent Design was created by taking Creationism and removing the word "God" and replacing it with "Intelligent Designer". This in theory makes it palatable to school systems because it does not promote a religion. But try to suggest that an alien was the intelligent designer to a proponent of this particular theory and see what they say. Since ID is proposed as a scientific theory, it doesn't get the pass that a religious idea gets. At least not from me. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, the scientist has to make observations, create hypotheses, design tests to validate the hypotheses and then present his data to the community where it can be debated and discussed. Evolution has had 150 years to people collecting data and testing hypotheses and it has built a track record of finding things that can be used to fill holes in expected ways to get from one organism to another. Yes there are some gaps, but if I had a nickle for every gap human beings have had in their knowledge and has later been filled, I would be sitting on a beach in Maui sipping a friggin' Mai Tai. However, I don't see anything in the ID camp that is testable. It all comes down to "since we don't know, it must be %insert intelligent designer here%." If that isn't faith, I don't know what is. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with faith. Faith is fine. It's fine in a church. It is fine in your home. It is fine in a philosophy class. It is fine in a number of settings. A science classroom however, is not one of them.
The same thing happens with the Big Bang vs Genesis. What was before the Big Bang? Who knows? Scientists don't. Some people have some notions, but nothing that is universally accepted. Nothing that is really beyond the hypothesis phase. They have some notions of things they would expect to find if it is true and they are designing tests to see if they can find these things. What is dark matter? No idea. Might not even be matter. Dark energy? Clueless. Could just be we have gravity wrong. Lots of ideas. Not a single answer. But there is some inherent testability. With "God did it", how do you test that? You can't. It's the very definition of faith. Again, I would never deny someone their faith. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but the science classroom is not the place for it.
I don't even know what to say about Old Earth vs. New Earth. Again, I'm not sure I understand why this is such a problem. I mean, I guess if you take a literal interpretation of the Bible, and you add up the ages of all of the patriarchs and you get that 6,000 year number I can see it being difficult to accept a 4.6 billion year old Earth. But if you have even a slightly less than literal interpretation of the Bible, why is 4.6 billion years so evil? The arguments I've seen are all very hand-wavy at best. The only thing that had any sort of proof for a young Earth, involved demonstrating that human and dinosaur footprints were found near each other in some locations and some rock wall paintings of things that looked kind of like dinosaurs. At least they are trying to post some evidence. This almost would not offend me if it were taught in schools. There's some evidence at least. Something other than "we don't know so it must be %insert deity of choice%". I don't think it would stand up too well in a room full of paleontologists, geologists, cosmologists, etc, but hey, it's something.
So here is the question I put forth.
In YOUR view, are science and religion simply incompatible? Is it one or the other? Is there room for both in a person's life?
Please feel free to comment below. As always, be civil. I am happy to have your opinions, and I am happy to see differing opinions, but no personal attacks. If name calling starts, comments will be closed. And remember. No is there, isn't there a God(s). The question is if there is room for both religion and science in a person's life? Does it have to be one or the other?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
What I Believe - For the Record
A friend of mine has stated that there are people who, since the popularity of the teabagger movement, have been preaching tea party tag lines and in some instances are preaching contradictory ideologies.
I just want to go on the record. These are my beliefs. I am not saying I have a full understanding of political ideologies. I am not going to tell you I am a Conservative, a Liberal, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Socialist, a Communist, a Green or one of about 10,000 other relabeled hacked together ideologies that, like every other religion (yeah I am calling them religions) out there, profess to be the best. I guess if you held a gun to my head, I would say the ideas proposed by Libertarians interest me the most. In their purest form, I think they are somewhat impractical, but they are pretty good. Here's what I believe. On the record. For all to see. Take it for what it is worth.
In a political system, I want a few things. I don't think I am asking for much here. I believe in the following for every person. It's a long list. It is going to be tough to comprehend.
1) Everyone has the right to life. Duh.
2) Everyone has the right to pursue their happiness. What is the point of life if you can't be happy?
3) Everyone has the right to attain and RETAIN the things that enhance either their life or their happiness.
4) Under no circumstances can someone's pursuit of their rights infringe on another person's rights.
WHEW! I don't know about you, but I need a nap. But seriously, that's it. It's not complicated.
I believe first and foremost in CHOICE. An individual's right to choose is instrumental in exercising their rights. Taking away an individual's choice, is the biggest violation of a human's rights that I can conceive of. Anything that a government does to limit choices of an individual are, in my opinion, wrong. Here is what I think government SHOULD do. Protect it's citizen's rights. Fairly simple and straight forward. Allow me to preserve my own life and the life of other people. Allow me to pursue things that make me happy. Allow me to keep my stuff. Prevent people from stopping me from exercising my rights.
1) I don't need a government to tell me what to do. In my house, I do what I want. I choose what I do and when I do it. If I go to dinner at a restaurant, I don't need the FDA telling my chef how much sodium chloride to put in my food while they are cooking it. I don't need them telling my beverage companies how much sugar they can put in my beverages. I don't want the government telling my restaurants how small of a smoking space they should have. There is not a person out there that does not know that if you are fat there are three options for you. Reduce caloric intake by restricting fat, carbohydrates and protein, increase your physical exertion, or better yet, both. It's not rocket science. There is not a person who does not know how bad smoking is for them. There is not a person out there that doesn't know that drugs and alcohol are bad for you. It is not news. But it makes people happy. You want to tell someone they shouldn't eat at McDonald's? Go ahead. But don't tell McDonald's they can only salt their fries with a single arch of salt instead of the standard two arches of salt. (Yeah. That's seriously how they dose the salt. The make a pair of arches, just like on the sign.) It is up to the individual to make that choice. What I think government SHOULD do in this situation? Make sure the ground beef doesn't kill me by making sure it is safe from microbes and toxins. Make sure that the conditions that limit food contamination are in place. I am even OK with them SUGGESTING how I should eat. But they should not force me to eat that way. That's it. Not complicated.
2) I want to smoke me some crack. It's awesome. It's the best thing ever. You know what I want the government to do about it? Make sure there isn't drain cleaner in it. Make sure I'm not high off my ass when I am driving down the road endangering other people's lives. Maybe come up with recommended maximum dosing. That's pretty much it. It's simple.
3) I have a nice pile of cash in the middle of my living room. It's a good five feet high and full of $50 and $100 bills. Must be millions of dollars in it. I like to roll around in it. I want it to be there when I get home from making more money. I then want to take that money I made and add it to the pile in the middle of my living room. If someone comes into my house and tries to take my money, I want to be able to defend my money. My life too if necessary. All he government has to do is not get in my way. If they manage to get my money? I want them to work on getting it back. If they can prevent it in the first place? Even better.
I don't think I am asking a lot here. I don't have a problem with being taxed to provide for these things. Military, police, firemen, FDA inspectors? All good. I don't have a problem with regulations that support these things. Paying taxes is a requirement. HOW those taxes are spent though, is another issue.
Taking my money so that you can then subsidize farmers? Not cool. Let the market set the prices. You want to cut taxes on farmers to ease their expenses? Fine. Don't pay them to dump out milk. Don't pay them to not grow crops. (Sadly, both happen.) Taking my money so you can subsidize solar panels? Not cool. Instead, tax breaks would be appropriate or, heaven forbid, making them complete on price instead of giving them money so they don't have to. Tax credits for people who buy energy efficient appliances? Appropriate as well. Taking my money so you can conduct a "war on drugs" is not cool. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol during the depression. Why would it work with drugs now? Stop filling prisons with people whose sole crime is they like to get high. On top of the cost of a war against people who like to get high, I have to feed and clothe them in the name of this holy crusade against the evils of drugs. At the very least, conduct the right war. Go after the dealers if you are going to go through with something this stupid. You know. The drug dealers. The people who actually sell the drugs? Now if they happen to harm someone while they are high? Throw the friggin' book at them.
Secure our borders. Keep people who are not authorized to be here out, especially people who would like to blow us up, or sell us drugs, and provide a path for people to come in. One of the best things about this country is the way we USED TO mix and match ideas and get the best of both worlds. Having points of view from other cultures made this country strong. We still need fresh ideas from other cultures. I am all for people coming here the right way.
I hope it is clear. If you have questions, please post below.
I just want to go on the record. These are my beliefs. I am not saying I have a full understanding of political ideologies. I am not going to tell you I am a Conservative, a Liberal, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Socialist, a Communist, a Green or one of about 10,000 other relabeled hacked together ideologies that, like every other religion (yeah I am calling them religions) out there, profess to be the best. I guess if you held a gun to my head, I would say the ideas proposed by Libertarians interest me the most. In their purest form, I think they are somewhat impractical, but they are pretty good. Here's what I believe. On the record. For all to see. Take it for what it is worth.
In a political system, I want a few things. I don't think I am asking for much here. I believe in the following for every person. It's a long list. It is going to be tough to comprehend.
1) Everyone has the right to life. Duh.
2) Everyone has the right to pursue their happiness. What is the point of life if you can't be happy?
3) Everyone has the right to attain and RETAIN the things that enhance either their life or their happiness.
4) Under no circumstances can someone's pursuit of their rights infringe on another person's rights.
WHEW! I don't know about you, but I need a nap. But seriously, that's it. It's not complicated.
I believe first and foremost in CHOICE. An individual's right to choose is instrumental in exercising their rights. Taking away an individual's choice, is the biggest violation of a human's rights that I can conceive of. Anything that a government does to limit choices of an individual are, in my opinion, wrong. Here is what I think government SHOULD do. Protect it's citizen's rights. Fairly simple and straight forward. Allow me to preserve my own life and the life of other people. Allow me to pursue things that make me happy. Allow me to keep my stuff. Prevent people from stopping me from exercising my rights.
1) I don't need a government to tell me what to do. In my house, I do what I want. I choose what I do and when I do it. If I go to dinner at a restaurant, I don't need the FDA telling my chef how much sodium chloride to put in my food while they are cooking it. I don't need them telling my beverage companies how much sugar they can put in my beverages. I don't want the government telling my restaurants how small of a smoking space they should have. There is not a person out there that does not know that if you are fat there are three options for you. Reduce caloric intake by restricting fat, carbohydrates and protein, increase your physical exertion, or better yet, both. It's not rocket science. There is not a person who does not know how bad smoking is for them. There is not a person out there that doesn't know that drugs and alcohol are bad for you. It is not news. But it makes people happy. You want to tell someone they shouldn't eat at McDonald's? Go ahead. But don't tell McDonald's they can only salt their fries with a single arch of salt instead of the standard two arches of salt. (Yeah. That's seriously how they dose the salt. The make a pair of arches, just like on the sign.) It is up to the individual to make that choice. What I think government SHOULD do in this situation? Make sure the ground beef doesn't kill me by making sure it is safe from microbes and toxins. Make sure that the conditions that limit food contamination are in place. I am even OK with them SUGGESTING how I should eat. But they should not force me to eat that way. That's it. Not complicated.
2) I want to smoke me some crack. It's awesome. It's the best thing ever. You know what I want the government to do about it? Make sure there isn't drain cleaner in it. Make sure I'm not high off my ass when I am driving down the road endangering other people's lives. Maybe come up with recommended maximum dosing. That's pretty much it. It's simple.
3) I have a nice pile of cash in the middle of my living room. It's a good five feet high and full of $50 and $100 bills. Must be millions of dollars in it. I like to roll around in it. I want it to be there when I get home from making more money. I then want to take that money I made and add it to the pile in the middle of my living room. If someone comes into my house and tries to take my money, I want to be able to defend my money. My life too if necessary. All he government has to do is not get in my way. If they manage to get my money? I want them to work on getting it back. If they can prevent it in the first place? Even better.
I don't think I am asking a lot here. I don't have a problem with being taxed to provide for these things. Military, police, firemen, FDA inspectors? All good. I don't have a problem with regulations that support these things. Paying taxes is a requirement. HOW those taxes are spent though, is another issue.
Taking my money so that you can then subsidize farmers? Not cool. Let the market set the prices. You want to cut taxes on farmers to ease their expenses? Fine. Don't pay them to dump out milk. Don't pay them to not grow crops. (Sadly, both happen.) Taking my money so you can subsidize solar panels? Not cool. Instead, tax breaks would be appropriate or, heaven forbid, making them complete on price instead of giving them money so they don't have to. Tax credits for people who buy energy efficient appliances? Appropriate as well. Taking my money so you can conduct a "war on drugs" is not cool. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol during the depression. Why would it work with drugs now? Stop filling prisons with people whose sole crime is they like to get high. On top of the cost of a war against people who like to get high, I have to feed and clothe them in the name of this holy crusade against the evils of drugs. At the very least, conduct the right war. Go after the dealers if you are going to go through with something this stupid. You know. The drug dealers. The people who actually sell the drugs? Now if they happen to harm someone while they are high? Throw the friggin' book at them.
Secure our borders. Keep people who are not authorized to be here out, especially people who would like to blow us up, or sell us drugs, and provide a path for people to come in. One of the best things about this country is the way we USED TO mix and match ideas and get the best of both worlds. Having points of view from other cultures made this country strong. We still need fresh ideas from other cultures. I am all for people coming here the right way.
I hope it is clear. If you have questions, please post below.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Stories I am tired of
The good news, no guns. The bad news, in this post, racist teabagging and the gulf.
Well... I guess Bill Maher is a teabagger. He will be thrilled to hear this. I mean, teabaggers are racist and this has got to be the single most racist thing that I have heard said about Obama in either public or private conversations. Check it out here and tell me what you think. There is, of course, the obvious exception of black comedians who, by definition, cannot say anything racist about black people and since they are black, cannot possibly be a member of a racist organization.
The thing is that I am getting a bit tired of this story. Outside of the one incident with the black representatives heading in to the health care vote, I don't know of a single instance of any kind of racist sentiment being uttered by a teabagger. Whenever the teabaggers are called racist, that is the only example I ever here. I guess that it could be a function of the media that I am exposed to. The only media that I read really are articles posted by people I follow on Twitter (mostly conservative with a dash liberal thrown in), some Daily Show, some Colbert Report, and every once in a while, Rachel Maddow. I know. Rachel Maddow is a bit of a guilty pleasure. It's like watching a mirror-universe version or Bill O'Reilly, but with boobs. Boobs are good. If you're wondering, the mirror version of Glenn Beck would be Keith Olberman, who has no boobs. In Glenn Beck's case, boobs are not good.
You know the other story I'm getting tired of? The "BP is evil" story. Look, I am not by any stretch an environmentalist. If you want to hug trees, go check out my friend's blog "Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian". It's a good read. He blogs about the environment, human rights, social issues and unfortunately, soccer. It is not for the faint of heart. I mean how much soccer can one person read about? Anyway, back to my thoughts. I don't mean that I am tired of the oil spill in the gulf story. Far from it. I am as interested as anyone else. It's an important story and I believe that a lot can be learned from what happened and changes can be made to make sure that it either doesn't happen again or, at the very least, that the impact is nowhere near this degree of severity.
Understand this. I am not happy about the situation in the Gulf. I am angry that it happened. I am angry that there are people out of work. I am angry that people lost their lives. I am angry that there is an ecosystem that is all but destroyed. I am angry that there are ways of life that are likely to come to and end for families that have been working for generations. I am angry that it has taken so long for any kind of functioning solution to show up. I am angry that the US government has taken precisely ZERO actions to assess or direct the response. I am not happy that they were impotent to stop BP from spraying the most toxic versions of the chemical dispersants into the ocean further damaging the ecosystem. But I am probably the MOST angry that the best response to this disaster that I have seen has come from KEVIN FREAKING COSTNER! Given all of this, I don't think BP is evil. Negligent? Yes. Incompetent? Certainly. But "evil?" It's a bit of a stretch. In my mind evil implies an intention to cause harm. That is the single over-arching goal. Death, destruction, mayhem.
Of the how many oil rigs in the gulf, what is it 3,500? This is the first one I have heard of with a significant oil spill. Did their safety measures fail? Yes. Did they have multiple layers of fail-safe systems fail? Yes. Was it their rig? Yes. Did they fail to keep these systems functional? Yes. Was it their fault? Yes. But was it their intent? Only if they are the real life incarnations of Bond villains. I mean come on. Seriously. You think that they were bored and said, "Let's dump a shitload of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and wreak havoc on the environment, sabotage our political win for new offshore drilling, cost ourselves billions of dollars and do irrevocable damage to our reputation. It will be... wait for it... LEGENDARY!" Do I fault them? Absolutely. It was the grossest form of negligence possible in an oil organization. I also fault the government that was supposed to regulate them. Why the hell are they taking my money to pay inspectors and fly them around the gulf and, you know, inspect stuff, if they are not finding things EXACTLY LIKE THIS? Isn't it their job to find this stuff and stop it before the worst case scenario happens? But on the flip side, as much as I fault BP, they are probably one of the few organizations that can mobilize and fund the efforts necessary to clean up the mess. And they are incentivized to find a solution and find it quickly. They do not have a bureaucracy (why the hell does that word have so many consonants? Even its spelling is wasteful.) to deal with. They don't have to have committee meetings in front of television cameras and posture for reelection. They are far more nimble than the US government.
The best part is that when all is said and done, nothing will change. BP will get a slap on the wrist. Their profits last year were a little over $16 Billion dollars. See page 3 of this report from BP's site. The government will institute some meaningless and toothless regulations that looks like they've put BP in their place, but will result in no change in the safety of the environment, and no change in BPs practices. It will however make it look like they were tough on "Big Oil" and those "evil" profit making companies. Because everyone knows that making profit is evil. I've said my piece. Feel free to comment below.
Well... I guess Bill Maher is a teabagger. He will be thrilled to hear this. I mean, teabaggers are racist and this has got to be the single most racist thing that I have heard said about Obama in either public or private conversations. Check it out here and tell me what you think. There is, of course, the obvious exception of black comedians who, by definition, cannot say anything racist about black people and since they are black, cannot possibly be a member of a racist organization.
The thing is that I am getting a bit tired of this story. Outside of the one incident with the black representatives heading in to the health care vote, I don't know of a single instance of any kind of racist sentiment being uttered by a teabagger. Whenever the teabaggers are called racist, that is the only example I ever here. I guess that it could be a function of the media that I am exposed to. The only media that I read really are articles posted by people I follow on Twitter (mostly conservative with a dash liberal thrown in), some Daily Show, some Colbert Report, and every once in a while, Rachel Maddow. I know. Rachel Maddow is a bit of a guilty pleasure. It's like watching a mirror-universe version or Bill O'Reilly, but with boobs. Boobs are good. If you're wondering, the mirror version of Glenn Beck would be Keith Olberman, who has no boobs. In Glenn Beck's case, boobs are not good.
You know the other story I'm getting tired of? The "BP is evil" story. Look, I am not by any stretch an environmentalist. If you want to hug trees, go check out my friend's blog "Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian". It's a good read. He blogs about the environment, human rights, social issues and unfortunately, soccer. It is not for the faint of heart. I mean how much soccer can one person read about? Anyway, back to my thoughts. I don't mean that I am tired of the oil spill in the gulf story. Far from it. I am as interested as anyone else. It's an important story and I believe that a lot can be learned from what happened and changes can be made to make sure that it either doesn't happen again or, at the very least, that the impact is nowhere near this degree of severity.
Understand this. I am not happy about the situation in the Gulf. I am angry that it happened. I am angry that there are people out of work. I am angry that people lost their lives. I am angry that there is an ecosystem that is all but destroyed. I am angry that there are ways of life that are likely to come to and end for families that have been working for generations. I am angry that it has taken so long for any kind of functioning solution to show up. I am angry that the US government has taken precisely ZERO actions to assess or direct the response. I am not happy that they were impotent to stop BP from spraying the most toxic versions of the chemical dispersants into the ocean further damaging the ecosystem. But I am probably the MOST angry that the best response to this disaster that I have seen has come from KEVIN FREAKING COSTNER! Given all of this, I don't think BP is evil. Negligent? Yes. Incompetent? Certainly. But "evil?" It's a bit of a stretch. In my mind evil implies an intention to cause harm. That is the single over-arching goal. Death, destruction, mayhem.
Of the how many oil rigs in the gulf, what is it 3,500? This is the first one I have heard of with a significant oil spill. Did their safety measures fail? Yes. Did they have multiple layers of fail-safe systems fail? Yes. Was it their rig? Yes. Did they fail to keep these systems functional? Yes. Was it their fault? Yes. But was it their intent? Only if they are the real life incarnations of Bond villains. I mean come on. Seriously. You think that they were bored and said, "Let's dump a shitload of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and wreak havoc on the environment, sabotage our political win for new offshore drilling, cost ourselves billions of dollars and do irrevocable damage to our reputation. It will be... wait for it... LEGENDARY!" Do I fault them? Absolutely. It was the grossest form of negligence possible in an oil organization. I also fault the government that was supposed to regulate them. Why the hell are they taking my money to pay inspectors and fly them around the gulf and, you know, inspect stuff, if they are not finding things EXACTLY LIKE THIS? Isn't it their job to find this stuff and stop it before the worst case scenario happens? But on the flip side, as much as I fault BP, they are probably one of the few organizations that can mobilize and fund the efforts necessary to clean up the mess. And they are incentivized to find a solution and find it quickly. They do not have a bureaucracy (why the hell does that word have so many consonants? Even its spelling is wasteful.) to deal with. They don't have to have committee meetings in front of television cameras and posture for reelection. They are far more nimble than the US government.
The best part is that when all is said and done, nothing will change. BP will get a slap on the wrist. Their profits last year were a little over $16 Billion dollars. See page 3 of this report from BP's site. The government will institute some meaningless and toothless regulations that looks like they've put BP in their place, but will result in no change in the safety of the environment, and no change in BPs practices. It will however make it look like they were tough on "Big Oil" and those "evil" profit making companies. Because everyone knows that making profit is evil. I've said my piece. Feel free to comment below.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Yeah. Guns again.
Here we go folks. You know, over the past couple of years, as much as I would like to live near my family, I could never live in N.Y. Between the proposed sugar taxes, the proposed salt ban and the ridiculous tax rates, I just can't do it. In that vein, the wonderful Mayor of NYC has seen fit to pool the firepower of a group of other mayors from around the country to campaign for a ban on the sale of weapons to suspected terrorists. How is the determination of your status as a "suspected terrorist" made? Great question. If you can find a single reference to any concrete criteria as to what defines a "suspected terrorist," then you are a better student of law than I. Though since I have never actually studied law in any way shape or form, it shouldn't be much of a challenge. (I also didn't spend 1/8th of a million dollars on a law degree. *cough* *cough*) I did not sit here and cross-reference this thing with the other pieces of legislation that it proposes to modify. Again I feel the need to point out that I am NOT a legal scholar, a legal professional or in any way an expert on how the Federal government can screw you. My opinions are based on what I read, and placed in the proper context, which I have neither the time, nor the inclination to put them into, they might not be that bad. If you are so inclined, then please feel free to cross reference and post your comments below.
Here is a link to the proposed legislation on the Govtrack site including a summary of the text, the full text, past actions and current status on the proposed legislation.
The bill is Senate bill 1317. A.K.A. ‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’
Seriously? Do you really need to indicate the terrorists are "dangerous?" I guess they need to in order to distinguish them from the terrorists who show up at your home and fold your laundry. Or the ones who come to our work and give people punch and pie. Or the ones that show up at busy commercial areas and hug bunnies. *sigh*
My personal favorites sections are:
The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General--
(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism;
I am going to "Glenn Beck" you now. That is to say that I am going to give you the most extreme and ridiculous example. Have you put gas in your car this week? Can you prove that that gas that you purchased did not come from a country that sponsors terrorism? More importantly can you prove that the money that you spent did not in some way make it directly into the hands of an organization that, in turn, purchased weapons, training or information that was used in a terrorist act? Congratulations. You could now be labeled a terrorist.
Now your natural response to this would be, as would mine, "That's ridiculous. I'm an American citizen. I don't have to prove my innocence, the state has to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of my peers." Hold on to your hats folks, because this is where things get "interesting."
(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘However, if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(3) or (e)(1)(C), any information upon which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner, if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.’.
(2) SUMMARIES- Section 923(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: ‘With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.
Did you catch the title of that section? Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information. That's right. They don't have to tell you a God blessed thing. In part (1), even if you drag them into court, they can slap a label of "National Security" on it and you don't get to see a thing. Part (2) lets them give the judge summarized and redacted documentation to make their case, so that the JUDGE doesn't even necessarily get to see the information used to make the determination that you should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. I am not a lawyer, but I know the words "may, might and shall," are VERY different from "must, will and shall." I could be misinterpreting the intended/legal implications of Part (2). Please feel free to point out my ignorance in the comments.
The lone bright spot of this legislation is that the the accused or the court can petition for the judge, and only the judge, to view the un-redacted documents, and determine if they are a fairly represented by the redacted documents in use in the courtroom.
(b) ... Upon request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.
Did you catch the rub? Even if the judge sees something in the un-redacted document that the judge would normally overturn the determination of the Attorney General, the judge CANNOT consider that information in the rendering of his verdict.
The stuff above about firearms? Yeah. Ditto that for explosives. I know, I know, "But why do we care if someone can buy explosives? What possible reason could someone have for owning a hand grenade?" OK. Is a firecracker an explosive? "Of course not. You couldn't use that to commit an act of terrorism." Really? The core of the failed device in Times Square that was supposed to initiate the reaction in the main explosive charge was... wait for it... a couple of M-88 firecrackers purchased at a "Phantom Fireworks" in Central PA. Thankfully the guy was a moron and bought underpowered legal fireworks (instead of their much more powerful illegal counterpart) and used crappy, substandard fertilizer to commit an illegal act that was going to end dozens of innocent lives.
Anyway, I don't want to bore you any further. I am just going to post what I sent to my representatives. If you are so moved, you can use it too. If not, you can make your own. If you don't care enough to send them a message, then be prepared to live with the consequences of your silence.
I should mention that I utilize the "No Fly" list as my litmus test. You may want to alter that in some form as the "No Fly" list is not specifically mentioned and you may, or may not know someone why was actually put on the "No Fly" list, so that part may not be applicable.
Representative:
I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that if this affront to our rights, by some horrific mistake, makes it out of the Senate and to the House of Representatives, that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the President.
Senator:
I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the House of Representatives.
Here is a link to the proposed legislation on the Govtrack site including a summary of the text, the full text, past actions and current status on the proposed legislation.
The bill is Senate bill 1317. A.K.A. ‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’
Seriously? Do you really need to indicate the terrorists are "dangerous?" I guess they need to in order to distinguish them from the terrorists who show up at your home and fold your laundry. Or the ones who come to our work and give people punch and pie. Or the ones that show up at busy commercial areas and hug bunnies. *sigh*
My personal favorites sections are:
The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm under section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of this title if the Attorney General--
(1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism;
I am going to "Glenn Beck" you now. That is to say that I am going to give you the most extreme and ridiculous example. Have you put gas in your car this week? Can you prove that that gas that you purchased did not come from a country that sponsors terrorism? More importantly can you prove that the money that you spent did not in some way make it directly into the hands of an organization that, in turn, purchased weapons, training or information that was used in a terrorist act? Congratulations. You could now be labeled a terrorist.
Now your natural response to this would be, as would mine, "That's ridiculous. I'm an American citizen. I don't have to prove my innocence, the state has to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of my peers." Hold on to your hats folks, because this is where things get "interesting."
(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘However, if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(3) or (e)(1)(C), any information upon which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner, if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security.’.
(2) SUMMARIES- Section 923(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the third sentence the following: ‘With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.
Did you catch the title of that section? Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information. That's right. They don't have to tell you a God blessed thing. In part (1), even if you drag them into court, they can slap a label of "National Security" on it and you don't get to see a thing. Part (2) lets them give the judge summarized and redacted documentation to make their case, so that the JUDGE doesn't even necessarily get to see the information used to make the determination that you should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. I am not a lawyer, but I know the words "may, might and shall," are VERY different from "must, will and shall." I could be misinterpreting the intended/legal implications of Part (2). Please feel free to point out my ignorance in the comments.
The lone bright spot of this legislation is that the the accused or the court can petition for the judge, and only the judge, to view the un-redacted documents, and determine if they are a fairly represented by the redacted documents in use in the courtroom.
(b) ... Upon request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.
Did you catch the rub? Even if the judge sees something in the un-redacted document that the judge would normally overturn the determination of the Attorney General, the judge CANNOT consider that information in the rendering of his verdict.
The stuff above about firearms? Yeah. Ditto that for explosives. I know, I know, "But why do we care if someone can buy explosives? What possible reason could someone have for owning a hand grenade?" OK. Is a firecracker an explosive? "Of course not. You couldn't use that to commit an act of terrorism." Really? The core of the failed device in Times Square that was supposed to initiate the reaction in the main explosive charge was... wait for it... a couple of M-88 firecrackers purchased at a "Phantom Fireworks" in Central PA. Thankfully the guy was a moron and bought underpowered legal fireworks (instead of their much more powerful illegal counterpart) and used crappy, substandard fertilizer to commit an illegal act that was going to end dozens of innocent lives.
Anyway, I don't want to bore you any further. I am just going to post what I sent to my representatives. If you are so moved, you can use it too. If not, you can make your own. If you don't care enough to send them a message, then be prepared to live with the consequences of your silence.
I should mention that I utilize the "No Fly" list as my litmus test. You may want to alter that in some form as the "No Fly" list is not specifically mentioned and you may, or may not know someone why was actually put on the "No Fly" list, so that part may not be applicable.
Representative:
I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that if this affront to our rights, by some horrific mistake, makes it out of the Senate and to the House of Representatives, that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the President.
Senator:
I have recently heard about legislation that is being proposed in the Senate (Senate bill 1317) that would prevent law abiding American citizens from purchasing firearms. The test for being denied this right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you are on the "No Fly" list after, in theory, having been labeled as a terrorist. The process for being added to this list is a complete and utter mystery. I personally know a person who was added to this list. He had never committed a felony. He had never committed a misdemeanor. He had never uttered a seditious word. He had never done anything in the entirety of his life that would indicate that he was a danger to anyone, except while driving a car. He only found out that he was on the list when he was asked by his boss to take a flight to a business conference. With the relative ease and capriciousness that someone can be added to the "No Fly" list, the thought of it being the deciding factor in who can purchase a firearm borders on the obscene. Removing a felon's right to own firearms is acceptable to me. The accused is tried in a court of law, he is given due process, he gets to face his accuser, and the burden of proof is on the state. There is no such process involved in the proposed method. Anyone who would vote to authorize some nameless, faceless, unaccountable person/entity to restrict the rights of an American citizen, is someone who does not deserve the honor of representing those citizens. At one point, the citizenry that took up arms against the French monarchy were labeled terrorists, people who rose up against the British monarchy were labeled terrorists. We are the descendants of terrorists. And those same terrorists enshrined in the Bill of Rights the right of every American citizen to keep and bear arms. I hope that you will have the good sense and strength of character to stop this bill before it is passed to the House of Representatives.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Teabagging to randomness
Probably should get this out of the way. If you want to know what "teabagging" is go here. This is why liberals like to refer to anyone who identifies themselves with the "Tea Party" movement as a "Teabagger." They find it quite funny. Hell, even I do.
Here is the problem though. I don't know that I am a teabagger. I certainly see some of their points. I agree that the government spends too much money and that they should work on fixing the spend to debt ratio. I think that they need to reevaluate their priorities.
I am not happy with the way the government is in spending my money. I am not happy with how much of my money they are taking. I am not happy about the fact that they are forcing me to carry "health insurance". I am not happy that they want to legislate to me how and what I should eat. I am not happy with the way that the government wants to punish me for lifestyle choices I may make. I am not happy with the choice to bail out financial institutions with my money because they are too big to fail and allow them to merge with institutions they decided NOT to save to get even BIGGER. I am not happy that federally backed mortgage institutions crapped out a bunch of loans to people who were not likely to be able to pay them back. I am not happy that the government solution to a faltering economy is to just print out more money, and more money, and more money. I am not happy that our government, in the face of a massive debt has decided that the best way to solve the problem is to borrow money in orders of magnitude more from countries that don't really like us that much. I don't like the fact that a government entity can come into my home, tell me to leave, and pay me a fraction of my home's value so that they can make room for a new strip mall "for the good of the community."
Let me be as clear as I can. I believe that we need a federal government. I believe that the federal government has, as its sworn duty, the obligation to provide for the safety, personal and financial, of us as citizens. I believe that the state governments exist as a check to the federal government and they are there to manage the day to day activities that affect our daily lives. I believe that there are well meaning people at all levels of government who genuinely think that they are doing things in the best way possible. I think that many of these government employees that serve in all of our forms of government are good people with good morals and in some cases a genuine desire to help people. Unfortunately for them, they are not the ones who make the headlines.
I believe there are some baaaad apples. I believe, regardless of why they became involved in government, they are only looking out for themselves. They seek to increase their wealth at the expense of others. They seek to expand their power at the cost of others rights. I believe that they have to be stopped.
I am not declaring that all democrats or liberals are socialists and that they are completely wrong. I think they make some valid points. I am not saying that all republicans or conservatives or, for that matter, libertarians are right. Neither side is right. I don't believe that all matters are black and white. Life is not binary. Everybody's opinion has value. I get really tired of watching "debates" about issues between people. It has gotten SO much worse since the pseudo-anonymity of the internet has come into the equation. At this stage of the game, exchanges go like this.
Person1: I think blah blah blah.
Person2: I think halb halb halb
Person1: How can you possibly think that. You don't agree with me, therefore you are an idiot.
Person2: Ditto, and your momma dresses you funny.
The debates are often filled with hypocrisy. Example courtesy of Rachel Maddow.
She ran a segment on how the tea party movement is full of hypocrites citing some good examples. People holding signs saying that government needs to stay out of people's lives while wearing a tee-shirt that says "Keep your hands off my social security." The hypocrisy was indeed staggering. The government needs to stay out of my life, but they better keep sending that check. Or the example that most of the protests, at least the well publicized ones, taking place in federally managed parks. Or the examples of people complaining that the government managed public transportation system was not handling the needs posed by the additional burden of the protesters. It is really quite entertaining. I believe you should check it out here.
I see her point. I even agree with her to an extent, but here's the problem. Why is it hypocritical to look at a situation where you have been conditioned that the government is going to take care of you in your old age, find out that by every measure of every economist, that the programs designed to do this are going to be bankrupt within your lifetime, possibly within the next decade, and be upset that the government, who has grossly mismanaged these programs is getting ready to start some more? Why is it hypocritical to look at a situation, evaluate the situation based on acquired knowledge and decide that the same thing that has been done before and failed, probably is not the best course of action? Changing your mind in the face of evidence is not hypocrisy. It is normal. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, all people who gave people a new perspective and changed world views. Nobody thought that the people who looked at their new information and changed their minds were hypocrites. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein. That one is a personal favorite.
Do I think that Medicare should have been started? No. Do I think that Social Security should have been started? No...Regardless of if I what I think, they were and theree are a lot of people who have planned their life around these programs being there. I currently pay into the biggest Ponzi scheme going. I am currently paying into Social Security and it will likely be bankrupt by the time I could collect. I have absolutely no faith that I will see one dime from the program.
I don't like that when my desire to spend money and I don't have enough, I have to change my expectations. The government either, takes more money from me, borrows money from other sources, which ends up getting paid back with... my money, just prints more. I don't think that if I wanted to spend money, that my boss would just pony up more dough for me to by a new XBOX360. I am also pretty sure that if I were to borrow a bunch of money from a bank and then tell my boss that he needed to pay me more money so I could pay that debt after I let the debt fester for a few years, my boss would tell me to go pound sand. I am also pretty sure that if I wanted a new XBOX360 and decided to print out some money to buy it, that the Secret Service would have something to say to me. I'm not asking the government to shrivel up and blow away, but I AM asking the government to do what I would be expected to do if I didn't have enough funds to operate the way I wanted to. CUT YOUR SPENDING.
The government failing (specifically the SEC) to keep track of the financial institutions that created and sold these risky financial packages that trashed economy, infuriates me. Then instead instead of letting these financial institutions fail because of their shoddy business practices, we bail them out, with my money, and allow them to grow even further by acquiring more large institutions. Then instead of tackling the necessary financial reform and telling people to live within their means, the government instead tells the banks to lend people more money, saddling them with more debt, and ignores financial regulation reforms and instead drives health care reform that, depending on which polls you look at, most people don't want. Where are the priorities? How is capitalism supposed to function if you never let anyone fail? Not everyone gets to win all the time. You take risk you fail.
I'm pissed. I don't like what the government is doing. I don't like that my speaking out against the government could get me labeled as a right-wing violent extremist militia nutcase. Anyone that holds a sign with Obama in Hitler regalia is some sort of violent extremist. Holding signs of Bush in Hitler regalia was OK though. I don't like that I have to sit back and think about someone else's feelings before I say something because I might "offend" someone. I know that any of you who knows me can't really believe that I think before I speak and that those thoughts involve someone's feelings, but it does happen. It has to. That is how real discourse is achieved. I also don't like that other people can't seem to do this. Again, I blame the pseudo-anonymity of the internet on this. Hyper-reactivity to contrary opinions, not just political (Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux anyone) combined with this pseudo-anonymity contributes to a lack of accountability and some serious "dick" behavior. You're labeled as an idiot, or a nutcase. It can never end up as, "I see what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree." It makes it impossible to achieve compromise. Again, I don't see the world as black and white. Compromise is necessary. We are human beings and we have to live together. You don't like my views? Fine. You have yours, I have mine. Live and let live you tree-hugging hippie communist retard.
Yeah. I know it kind of went all over the place. Suck it. I'm tired and it is late. I had to get some of this stuff out of my head. Hopefully I can get some sleep now.
Here is the problem though. I don't know that I am a teabagger. I certainly see some of their points. I agree that the government spends too much money and that they should work on fixing the spend to debt ratio. I think that they need to reevaluate their priorities.
I am not happy with the way the government is in spending my money. I am not happy with how much of my money they are taking. I am not happy about the fact that they are forcing me to carry "health insurance". I am not happy that they want to legislate to me how and what I should eat. I am not happy with the way that the government wants to punish me for lifestyle choices I may make. I am not happy with the choice to bail out financial institutions with my money because they are too big to fail and allow them to merge with institutions they decided NOT to save to get even BIGGER. I am not happy that federally backed mortgage institutions crapped out a bunch of loans to people who were not likely to be able to pay them back. I am not happy that the government solution to a faltering economy is to just print out more money, and more money, and more money. I am not happy that our government, in the face of a massive debt has decided that the best way to solve the problem is to borrow money in orders of magnitude more from countries that don't really like us that much. I don't like the fact that a government entity can come into my home, tell me to leave, and pay me a fraction of my home's value so that they can make room for a new strip mall "for the good of the community."
Let me be as clear as I can. I believe that we need a federal government. I believe that the federal government has, as its sworn duty, the obligation to provide for the safety, personal and financial, of us as citizens. I believe that the state governments exist as a check to the federal government and they are there to manage the day to day activities that affect our daily lives. I believe that there are well meaning people at all levels of government who genuinely think that they are doing things in the best way possible. I think that many of these government employees that serve in all of our forms of government are good people with good morals and in some cases a genuine desire to help people. Unfortunately for them, they are not the ones who make the headlines.
I believe there are some baaaad apples. I believe, regardless of why they became involved in government, they are only looking out for themselves. They seek to increase their wealth at the expense of others. They seek to expand their power at the cost of others rights. I believe that they have to be stopped.
I am not declaring that all democrats or liberals are socialists and that they are completely wrong. I think they make some valid points. I am not saying that all republicans or conservatives or, for that matter, libertarians are right. Neither side is right. I don't believe that all matters are black and white. Life is not binary. Everybody's opinion has value. I get really tired of watching "debates" about issues between people. It has gotten SO much worse since the pseudo-anonymity of the internet has come into the equation. At this stage of the game, exchanges go like this.
Person1: I think blah blah blah.
Person2: I think halb halb halb
Person1: How can you possibly think that. You don't agree with me, therefore you are an idiot.
Person2: Ditto, and your momma dresses you funny.
The debates are often filled with hypocrisy. Example courtesy of Rachel Maddow.
She ran a segment on how the tea party movement is full of hypocrites citing some good examples. People holding signs saying that government needs to stay out of people's lives while wearing a tee-shirt that says "Keep your hands off my social security." The hypocrisy was indeed staggering. The government needs to stay out of my life, but they better keep sending that check. Or the example that most of the protests, at least the well publicized ones, taking place in federally managed parks. Or the examples of people complaining that the government managed public transportation system was not handling the needs posed by the additional burden of the protesters. It is really quite entertaining. I believe you should check it out here.
I see her point. I even agree with her to an extent, but here's the problem. Why is it hypocritical to look at a situation where you have been conditioned that the government is going to take care of you in your old age, find out that by every measure of every economist, that the programs designed to do this are going to be bankrupt within your lifetime, possibly within the next decade, and be upset that the government, who has grossly mismanaged these programs is getting ready to start some more? Why is it hypocritical to look at a situation, evaluate the situation based on acquired knowledge and decide that the same thing that has been done before and failed, probably is not the best course of action? Changing your mind in the face of evidence is not hypocrisy. It is normal. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, all people who gave people a new perspective and changed world views. Nobody thought that the people who looked at their new information and changed their minds were hypocrites. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein. That one is a personal favorite.
Do I think that Medicare should have been started? No. Do I think that Social Security should have been started? No...Regardless of if I what I think, they were and theree are a lot of people who have planned their life around these programs being there. I currently pay into the biggest Ponzi scheme going. I am currently paying into Social Security and it will likely be bankrupt by the time I could collect. I have absolutely no faith that I will see one dime from the program.
I don't like that when my desire to spend money and I don't have enough, I have to change my expectations. The government either, takes more money from me, borrows money from other sources, which ends up getting paid back with... my money, just prints more. I don't think that if I wanted to spend money, that my boss would just pony up more dough for me to by a new XBOX360. I am also pretty sure that if I were to borrow a bunch of money from a bank and then tell my boss that he needed to pay me more money so I could pay that debt after I let the debt fester for a few years, my boss would tell me to go pound sand. I am also pretty sure that if I wanted a new XBOX360 and decided to print out some money to buy it, that the Secret Service would have something to say to me. I'm not asking the government to shrivel up and blow away, but I AM asking the government to do what I would be expected to do if I didn't have enough funds to operate the way I wanted to. CUT YOUR SPENDING.
The government failing (specifically the SEC) to keep track of the financial institutions that created and sold these risky financial packages that trashed economy, infuriates me. Then instead instead of letting these financial institutions fail because of their shoddy business practices, we bail them out, with my money, and allow them to grow even further by acquiring more large institutions. Then instead of tackling the necessary financial reform and telling people to live within their means, the government instead tells the banks to lend people more money, saddling them with more debt, and ignores financial regulation reforms and instead drives health care reform that, depending on which polls you look at, most people don't want. Where are the priorities? How is capitalism supposed to function if you never let anyone fail? Not everyone gets to win all the time. You take risk you fail.
I'm pissed. I don't like what the government is doing. I don't like that my speaking out against the government could get me labeled as a right-wing violent extremist militia nutcase. Anyone that holds a sign with Obama in Hitler regalia is some sort of violent extremist. Holding signs of Bush in Hitler regalia was OK though. I don't like that I have to sit back and think about someone else's feelings before I say something because I might "offend" someone. I know that any of you who knows me can't really believe that I think before I speak and that those thoughts involve someone's feelings, but it does happen. It has to. That is how real discourse is achieved. I also don't like that other people can't seem to do this. Again, I blame the pseudo-anonymity of the internet on this. Hyper-reactivity to contrary opinions, not just political (Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux anyone) combined with this pseudo-anonymity contributes to a lack of accountability and some serious "dick" behavior. You're labeled as an idiot, or a nutcase. It can never end up as, "I see what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree." It makes it impossible to achieve compromise. Again, I don't see the world as black and white. Compromise is necessary. We are human beings and we have to live together. You don't like my views? Fine. You have yours, I have mine. Live and let live you tree-hugging hippie communist retard.
Yeah. I know it kind of went all over the place. Suck it. I'm tired and it is late. I had to get some of this stuff out of my head. Hopefully I can get some sleep now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
