Obama Executive Orders

Haven't done this in a while, but this would have been pretty long as a Facebook post.  It is pretty much just a reaction to executive orders proposed by the President to help curtail gun violence.  tl;dr version: meh.  It's a bunch of commitments to send letters, issue memos, and ask for money (from Congress) in the budget to hire more people.  Nothing Earth-shattering here.  The only things of any real significance are the actions related to defining who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms (which they take a "we'll know it when we see it" approach), actions related to use of gun trusts (but no specifics on that), and using Social Security Administration information to restrict firearm ownership based on inability to manage your affairs.

Full text is here.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our


1) Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks. - Meh.

    "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks." - My interpretation, is anyone who has a table at a gun show will need a license if they want to sell guns.  That's pretty much the way it is now with a few outliers.  If you have enough guns to sell where you need a table at a gun show to do it, I am OK with this.

    "ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity."  - Yeah.  Mass shooters and dangerous felons were spending the time and money to incorporate and set up gun trusts.  Sure.

    "Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history." - They are going to send letters asking LEOs to do what they were SUPPOSED to be doing already.

    "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks." - Every gun control proponents dream come true.  Faster background checks.  Kind of a fan of this one since it will really only apply to people who needed additional review.

2) Make our communities safer from gun violence. - Meh

    "The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws." - Enforcing gun laws that are already on the books?  Does this mean they will actually prosecute straw purchasers now instead of cutting plea deals?  Crazy talk.

    "The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws." - Budget item so Congress will have to approve the funds.

    "ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network." - Assuming that $4 million is already in their budget, whatever.

    "ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit." - Already law.

    "The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts." - A memo.

3) Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system. - Not a fan of the SSA action.

    "The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care." - Another proposed expense that will need to be approved by Congress.

    "The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons." - This one I am not a fan of.  Assigning someone to take care of your finances because you forget to pay your bills on occasion should not disqualify you from owning a firearm.  This one will need to be handled VERY carefully.

    "The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons." - Until I find out what those "specific mental health reasons" are, I will have to reserve judgement on that one.

4) Shape the future of gun safety technology. - Meh.

    "The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology." - I don't have a problem with researching gun safety technology.  I don't know that I think the government should be footing the bill for it, but that's a different issue.

    "The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." - Again, we are talking research items not rules.

    "Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500 million investment to address mental health issues." - Already covered.  Something Congress needs to authorize.

    "Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do." - Another request for organizations to "do something".

Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands Through Background Checks

    "Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks." - not a fan of the "we'll know it when we see it" definition of "engaged in the business".

    "Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation." - Gun trusts have become popular because 1) you can use electronic processing of forms with the ATF which is WAY faster (weeks instead of months), 2) if you buy a significant number of items that require ATF registration like supressors (why do I need to pay $200 and get a background check to get a muffler?), it greatly cuts down on the paperwork, 3) in states where owning of firearms is illegal without a permit, (like when my father passed away and my mother had to stop what she was doing and worry about handling the guns she was unlicensed for because the police called her) you have time to work stuff out.

    "Ensure States are providing records to the background check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to improve reporting." - Sure.

    "Make the background check system more efficient and effective." - These 230 individuals will be handling the checks that are flagged for further scrutiny, which most are not.  I am cool with making resources available to make sure that people do not walk out of a store with a gun because the background check took too long, and no I am not willing to get rid of the 3 day maximum.

Making Our Communities Safer from Gun Violence

    "Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws." - Prosecuting stuff that is already illegal is a brilliant strategy.  Perhaps they should have tried that earlier.  NIBIN is not going to track down anybody.  Similar programs in NY and MD have been proven to be useless and discontinued them.

    "Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns." - Already a requirement.  This is just going to clarify who is responsible for doing it (the shipper).

    "Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts." - Another memo.  Domestic violence sucks, so yay?

Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check System - OK, I find this comical.  "We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment" by using it as a disqualifier for owning a firearm.

    "Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to mental health care." - Good, if you can get Congress to sign off on it.

    "Include information from the Social Security Administration in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm." - Nope.  Forgetting to pay your cable bill does not mean you should lose the right to defend yourself.  Dementia is one thing, absent-mindedness is another.

    "Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information to the background check system." - Removing HIPAA from the equation seems legit if it is THE ONLY reason that the information was not being reported.

Shaping the Future of Gun Safety Technology - Microstamping has nothing to do with safety.

    "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology." - As the largest single purchased of firearms in the country, I am cool with them investing in the technology.  It should be noted though, that unless you get the military and LEOs to use the technology, it will go nowhere with most gun owners.

Components of the AWB

I put together a little post about the items that are in Senator Feinstein's proposed 2013 Assault Weapon Ban.  What follows is a picture of it available from a popular retailer (where available) and a description of the item.  The pictures do not show the item attached to a weapon.  There are plenty of those pictures all over the internet.  I think that causes confusion and I would like you to judge the item on its own without the firearm that it is associated with.  If you have a friend on the internet who is either for or against gun control, you have seen one already anyway.  Please keep in mind that if a firearm has ANY ONE of these features, it becomes and assault weapon.

Pistol Grip - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/2-MFTEPGI47FDE.jpg

It is a piece of plastic/rubber. It is in the shape of a pistol (hence the name).  You hold it.  If someone can explain to me how you can kill more people by twisting your wrist 15 degrees instead of 45 degrees, I will ban the things in a heartbeat.  It is an ergonomic feature.  It made the weapons more comfortable to use.  For service men and women who had to hold their weapons for 12+ hours it is a great innovation.  Aurora boy and the Newton asshat were not going to get a cramp and stop shooting.

Forward Grip - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/3-1029180_A.jpg

Pretty much the same as above, only your wrist is twisted 0 degrees instead of 90 when holding the gun by the barrel shroud.  Speaking of which...

Barrel Shroud - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/9-89137.jpg

This is where you hold the front of the gun.  Some of them have mounting points that you can mount things like the "forward grip" mentioned above.  It keeps you from burning your hands on the barrel.  Something similar is on every single rifle in existence.  It is just usually made of wood and doesn't surround the barrel.  Most upgraded versions include a rail system that you can use to mount things like scopes and other sighting equipment.  Most firearms are capable of having accessories added to them.

Folding, Telescoping, or Detachable Stock - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/6-1021494.jpg, http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/ARR-852.jpg,

Folding

Telescoping (Collapsible)

Detachable
???

It is a piece of plastic that you rest against your shoulder when firing your weapon.  Collapsible/telescoping means you can adjust the length to fit the person using the weapon.  A 14 year old who is using a shotgun for small game hunting does not have the same length arms as an 18 year old.  Women do not tend to have the same arm length as men.  It is to allow the weapon to be adjusted to fit the shooter.  The folding stock folds at a pivot point that you can see in the above image.  I will concede that the folding stock can be used to make a weapon shorter and therefore make it more concealable, but the weapons used in these shootings were not concealed.  They were out in the open from the start.  No concealment attempts were made.  The detachable stock escapes me.  I guess you can remove the stock completely, but you can do the same thing with a hack saw on a wooden stock.  So I am not sure what they mean here.

Grenade Launcher or Rocket Launcher - http://www.kiesler.com/shop/ProductImages/M203_2.jpg

Grenade Launcher

Rocket Launcher
???

I could only find a picture of a grenade launcher.  I tried really hard to find an image of a gun mounted rocket launcher, but strangely, I cannot find a picture of an item that you hold IN FRONT OF YOU and throws FLAMES OUT OF THE BACK of it that you would then attach to your gun.  I am pretty sure that the flames from the rocket would generate enough heat to melt most of the above equipment and likely set off the rounds held in the magazine sitting directly behind where it would attach to the gun.  Oh yeah, it would also likely set you on fire.

It should be noted that just like all other class 3 weapons, (Fully automatic weapons such as M-16s, AK-47 [full auto version, not semi-automatics], Tommy guns and my personal favorite, the Dillon minigun) these are HIGHLY regulated and very EXPENSIVE.  You can only buy them if they were manufactured PRIOR to 1984 and you cannot purchase one without undergoing a background check with the BATFE (aka ATF), fingerprints taken by local law enforcement, approval of local law enforcement and $200 for the transfer from he previous owner.  This usually requires a 2 - 6 month wait for the paperwork to clear the BATFE process.  On top of that, if you want the high explosive rounds, you again have to deal with theB ATFE and get certified in handling explosives.  It should be said that I have used one with practice rounds (chalk filled rounds) and I am a FRIGHTENINGLY good shot with them.  Way better than I am with the actual rifle.  Suffice it to say, they are already way more illegal than they would be under this ban.  Note that not a single mass shooting has used a grenade/rocket launcher.

Threaded Barrel - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/GNS-161.jpg

Sorry.  This is actually a pistol barrel, but I couldn't find any good images of a rifle barrel.  Just imagine it is about 4 times longer.  Threaded barrels are regular barrels with threads cut onto the end of them like you would find on a a standard bolt that you can buy at The Home Depot.  They are there to screw on compensators, flash hiders and silencers.  Compensators redirect some of the gasses produced by the gun powder in the combustion chamber to help keep your gun from creeping upward while firing it.  The flash hider helps block some of the light from the burning powder from appearing above the barrel so it doesn't block your view.  Everyone thinks they know what a silencer is.  It's not what you think.  On a weapon other than a .22 it does not make the firearm whisper quiet.  It makes it so you can shoot without hearing protection.  That's it.  Shooting a gun in a closed environment, like your home, can permanently damage your hearing.

So to sum up,

Grips - comfort/control
Collapsible stock - comfort/adjustment for different size shooters
Barrel shroud - keeps you from burning your support hand
Threaded barrel - attachments
Grenade Launcher - Already heavily regulated/registered/restricted/expensive

I would like to also note that these weapons are modular.  You can buy a weapon that is perfectly legal and buy ALL of these items LEGALLY in the aftermarket and attach them to your gun.  No legislation has been put forward to ban the manufacture and sale of these items.  Just selling them when pre-installed on a firearm would be illegal.  Of course it would be illegal to be CAUGHT with a weapon configured this way, if the authorities could prove the weapon was modified after the ban was put in place.  Of course, I don't have to tell you how criminals and the mentally unbalanced feel about obeying the law...

High Capacity Magazines - http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/MAG-056.jpg

I chose the grand-poo bah of high capacity for the picture.  The 100 round C-Mag Beta magazine.  A lot of emphasis has been put on the 30 and 100 round magazines available for firearms.  This part of the post is specifically aimed toward the AR-15/AK-47 pattern weapons, but applies to handguns too.  For most handguns, the standard capacity, with a few exceptions, is around 15 rounds which is more than the 10 allowed.  Take the legal 10 round magazine (that in NY you can only out 7 rounds in).  Do me a favor and count to 5.  1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi, 4 Missisissippi, 5 Mississippi.  Did you have time to recognize that the shooter was out of ammunition, move from behind cover that I am hoping you were hiding behind while they were shooting and subdue the attacker?  No?  Neither does anyone else.  The difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine aggregate for an UNTRAINED person such as myself?  2 x 5 seconds or 10 seconds.  For someone who actually practices?  2 x 2 seconds or 4 seconds.  For the 100 round magazine pictured above?  18 and 45seconds respectively.  If you are thinking you are going to take out a shooter in the 2 - 5 seconds it takes him to change magazines you are a fool.  There is a reason why there is the old saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."  Hell, you probably don't even have a knife since most security policies don't allow you to carry a knife either.

Ammunition

The guy in Aurora had 6000 rounds of ammunition.  Holy shit, that's insane!  Actually, it's not.  When I go to the range, I will go through 200 - 300 rounds in a normal day.  That would be 20 - 30 trips to the range.  But then there are times when, in the course of a weekend, I can go through 500 - 600 rounds depending on the weather and the company.  And I am not a heavy shooter.  But here is the best part.  People say he had 6000 rounds like he took it all with him.  Unless he had a wagon or wheel-barrow he was not carrying 6000 rounds of ammunition with him.  1000 rounds of .233 weighs roughly 28lbs.  6 x 28 = 168 pounds.  Good luck with that.

Ammunition does not go bad.  The people, like myself, who are going to use it anyways stock up because buying in bulk SAVES MONEY and shooting is pretty damn expensive.  You go to Costco and stock up on TP?  I do the same thing with ammunition.  I currently have over 1200 rounds of .223, 500 rounds of 357 Magnum, 1000 rounds of 357 sig (sadly this is one of the least expensive handgun rounds available when it would be one of the more expensive under normal circumstances) and about 300 rounds of .40.  That is roughly 3000 rounds of ammunition.  I'm not going to be shooting up a school or a mall or a college campus.  Having more than 50 rounds of ammunition does not make me a killer.

What to do

I am not saying that legislation is off the table.  I am not advocating for the status quo.  I just don't believe that making roughly 80 million American citizens, who have done nothing wrong, criminals.  There are things that can totally be implemented that I would support.  I have zero problems with improving the background check system.  Most states do not report criminals or people adjudicated mentally unfit to own a firearm to the federal NICS system.  Improving compliance in this area might have stopped Aurora boy from getting his weapons.  They would not have stopped the Newtown asshat since he got his by taking his mom's legally owned firearm and shooting her in the face with it so he could take the rest.  I stop short of registration.  They are different.  For me the 4th amendment comes into play here.  Having a database of all of the firearms that I have is not necessary to determine if I should get to purchase a new firearm, and as we have seen, some people would publish that information of they could get a hold of it, making law-abiding citizens targets of crime.  I have no problem with prosecuting straw purchasers.  I have no problem with prosecuting people who attempt to purchase firearms who fail the background check.  Most of these are already law, but not enforced or are underfunded.  I also support getting people who would be disqualified from owning a firearm due to being adjudicated mentally unfit treatment.  I would much rather pay to prevent them from committing a crime than pay to incarcerate them after the fact.  And since one of the primary motivators for gun violence, outside of being bat-shit insane is the violence fostered by the drug trade, let's work on legalizing some of that stuff.

Feel free to comment below.  If it doesn't make sense to you why I think this would be utterly and completely ineffective, I will be happy to provide alternate examples or whatever else is necessary if you are truly interested.

Hopefully Some Useful Discussion to Avoid Tragedy

I'm kind of tired of posting the same thing on Facebook over and over.  So I am going to say them here and link back if I feel it's necessary.  This is not going to be complete.  It would be so long, nobody would read it.  It is more of a jumping off point.  If you want to discuss further, then by all means, comment below.  If you don't, well don't.  I only ask that if you do, you keep it civil.  On an issue like this, at a time like this, emotions can run high.  Everyone feels like the other side doesn't get it.  Everyone needs to remember that the person on the other side of the discussion is not evil.  They are just trying to do what they think is right.  They are approaching it from a different viewpoint based on their beliefs and their personal experiences, not from a position of malice.  OK, disclaimer out of the way, so let's get to it.

I think there is some sort of misconception.  It seems that there are folks out there who think that people like myself, who enjoy shooting guns for fun, are looking to remove all gun restrictions and are hoping that one day we will get called upon to fend off an army of criminals so we can straight up murder people's asses.

I have zero interest in actually shooting someone.  I like to shoot.  I have a concealed carry permit.  I don't carry, but I have one for practical purposes.  I like shooting different guns and different calibers.  I am OK with preventing individuals who have a reasonable chance of harming someone from owning a gun.  I have started teaching my kids how to shoot a BB gun.  I want them to understand guns.  To understand their inherent dangers and how to properly be around and handle guns.  How to treat a gun, especially an unfamiliar one.  To learn good habits at a relatively young age so they take hold and become habit.  I am willing to discuss "real" gun control as long as your definition of "real" is not solely comprised of the outright ban of guns.  What I am not willing to do is tolerate people who have never fired a gun, have no understanding of how firearms work, the differences in the various calibers or the actual ballistics involved in a bullet impacting a target trying to tell me what type of gun is "legitimate" for a civilian to own.

People who do not understand that a .223 round fired from a bolt action "hunting rifle" (H/R) and a semi-automatic "assault rifle" (A/R) have the same terminal ballistics, lecturing me on what gun is appropriate or inappropriate to have, angers me.  People who don't understand that a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a heat shield, a bayonet lug or accessory rails do not make an A/R do more damage than a similarly chambered H/R lecturing me on what my gun should look like irritate me.  Do they enhance the overall effectiveness of a weapon?  Of course they do.  Otherwise the military would not issue them, but they are more about ergonomics for the soldier than making it deadlier.  If I hand you 100 rounds of .223 and have you shoot them from a H/R and hand you another 100 rounds and shoot them from a A/R you will find that the A/R does not kill at a statistically significant higher ratio than a H/R using the same ammunition.

Now, if you want to talk about a semi-automatic action being unnecessary?  Bring it.  You want to talk about limiting the capacity of magazines?  I would love to have that conversation as well.  Talk about the ineffectiveness of the mental health portion of the background checks?  Great topic that is finally getting some notice.  The ability to buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check?  Happy to oblige. Talk about the possibility that the people who commit acts like mass shootings only do it to become famous (or infamous)?  Just because Morgan Freeman didn't actually say it doesn't make it any less valid.  Let's talk about things that might make an actual difference instead of banning weapons because of a knee-jerk reaction to cosmetic crap.

Now that I have said my peace, feel free to say yours.

Why I am Incompatible with Liberalism/Progressivism

I should start out saying I am not a Republican or a Democrat.  I don't like either of those two options.  They all do the same things, but justify them differently.  I don't care who you support, what your agenda is, get out and vote.  Vote for anyone.  Anyone you want.  Just not someone with an (R) or a (D) after their name.  That being said, here's the meat.

Liberals/progressives seem to think that you can solve problems of inequity by involving the government.  Think everyone should have health care?  Federal government should provide it to the people.  Too many people dying in car crashes?  Federal government should pass legislation the make cars safer.  Think people don't make enough money?  Federal government should pass legislation to increase wages.  Think corporations are acting against the interests of their employees and customers?  Federal government should create a regulatory framework to make sure the corporations act responsibly.

Here is the thing.  Forget for a second that I am a cold, heartless SoB.  I'll give you that one.  Forget that I believe in personal responsibility and working to solve your own problems instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you.  Maybe I'm wrong on that one.  Forget that I believe that the government should look to the people for direction instead of the government telling us how to live our lives.  Let's put those things aside.  Answer me this question.  Do you trust your government?

You see, I wouldn't have so much of an issue with the government handling some of the aspects of our day to day lives if I trusted them.  There are a couple levels of trust.  Trust that they tell the truth, that they have our best interest at heart and that they are sufficiently knowledgeable/capable.  Can you honestly sit there and tell me that you trust the people that are running this country?  Opinions on the Congress, both houses, are abysmal.  The Supreme Court isn't even trusted anymore. The President?  I'm not going to count that one.  Presidents are always a lightning rod of scrutiny.  We don't trust the institutions that are supposed to regulate industries.  We don't trust the people who make the laws.  We don't trust the people who enforce the laws.  We don't trust the people who interpret the laws.  You sit there and tell me that the Congress is bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.  The President is bought and paid for with corporate donations to political actions committees (PACs).  Even the Supreme Court is bought and paid for because their family owns stock in medical companies.  So THESE are the people you want making the big decisions.  The people who are owned by the very organizations that you think the government should be protecting us from.  Yup.  That makes sense.

But wait.  I'm sorry.  Your guy/girl/group is different.  They are incorruptible.  They said XYZ.  They would never do ABC.  They said they wouldn't.  If we elect them, everything will be different.  They wouldn't maintain the same policies that the previous administration held and that you abhorred.  Yup.  That's never happened.  We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We added Libya.  We're eyeballing Syria and Iran.  Gitmo?  Still there.  Surveillance on our own population?  Patriot Act, so check.  Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without Due Process?  Thank you NDAA.  The government didn't fall apart when the Republicans captured the house.  It wasn't ruined when the Democrats captured the presidency and maintained control of the Senate. It wasn't ruined when the previous president was Republican.  It wasn't ruined when the previous House and Senate were controlled by Democrats.  It wasn't ruined in the previous administration.  Or the one before that.  It has been a steady decline.  Over time, politicians from our two perceived options for parties have proven, time and again, that they have the moral fortitude of overcooked pasta.  They lie, they cheat (both their constituents and on their spouses), they hold other politicians' legislation hostage unless they get what they want (even when it's unrelated) like they are 3-year-olds.

Let's also not forget that we are letting people with backgrounds in law, business and politics craft legislation about education, transportation, medicine, environment, energy, the Internet, cyber security, defense, the economy, trade, foreign policy.  Fields they have ZERO experience in.  The people they get their information from to make these decisions?  The lobbyists.  The ones nobody trusts.

Now let's say that you get all your people in.  And they do exactly what they say they will do.  And they are experienced enough to make intelligent decisions regarding the topics above.  What happens when they are not in there anymore.  What happens when the other guys are back in.  And now you have to live with their ideas on the above topics?  Oh, now it doesn't seem like such a good idea, does it?

Religion vs. Science: Do we have to choose?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Out of Work

Well, I have been out of work for a couple of weeks now. The bad news is I am still unemployed, the good news is I qualified for unemployment. Yay. We are in money saving mode now. Already canceled one relatively inexpensive trip. May be skipping another. Pulled the kids out of daycare for most of the week. Just in two days now so we can hold their spots for my inevitable return to work.

Let me tell you there are a couple of motivators for my desire to return to work quickly.

Money - Obviously money is a plus. Money lets you do things. Doing things is fun. I would like to do things again.

Pride - I do not like being a drain on the economy. I like to be a productive member of society. It actually hurts my pride to think that I am not contributing to my family's welfare. I can imagine for people that are looking for jobs and there are none to be had for months, that is can be quite frustrating. I have a new sense of empathy for the unemployed who are diligently looking for work.

Kids - I love my kids, but if I have to keep watching them 3 days a week, I may shoot myself. My weekends are no longer Saturday and Sunday, but Tuesday and Thursday, the days my kids go to school. I'm not Superdad. I consider the day a success if they survive relatively intact.

Boredom - Working on the "Honey-Do" list is nice, but a good chunk of the list requires motivation #1.

The good news is that today I was contacted to schedule a phone interview for Monday or Tuesday. Hopefully it will go well. The problem with the job hunt is that I have always had this minor inferiority complex. Always thinking that I am not good enough to fill a position. I normally have to have demonstrated to me that I am indeed as smart or smarted that a lot of the other people out there who are also looking for the same positions. I also need to remind myself that I have been doing this for 11 years now. I also have to remind myself that even if I do not have a specific skill set that is being requested that I ACTUALLY AM smart enough to pick up just about anything that would be required. The problem is, how do you prove that to someone in an interview, when they hear that a dozen times a day.

Another problem is that I hate interviewing. I haven't interviewed a lot. Especially in the last 5 years. Now I have to re-learn a skill set that never was a strong suit to begin with. It is basically selling yourself to another person. I am not a sales person. Ask one of my previous bosses, he can vouch for my sales skills. That combined with the inferiority complex makes it tough for me to sell myself. I have got to overcome that.

Privacy vs. Anonymity

There has been an ongoing legal battle regarding a blog called "Skanks in NYC". The blog was removed from Google when Google was sued to find out who ran the blog. The Plaintiff won and now the name of the blogger has been released. Story here http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43718/98/

The person who wrote the blog is now in the process of looking at her legal options for suing Google over her invasion of privacy.

Seriously? Can you really claim that you were looking for privacy when you are posting your thoughts for the whole world to see?

I think that what she was looking for was anonymity, not privacy. Anonymity allows you to make comments that you would never make to a person's face. Anonymity allows you to avoid the repercussions of what you say. Is anonymity a right? If it is a right, is it a right you can expect when you are putting yourself out there in the public eye spouting off on topics that would normally expose you to defamation/liable (not a lawyer so sue me) lawsuits if you were to put your name on something?

I believe that what a person does in their own home is their business, but if you step outside it becomes the community's business. Walk around naked in your own house, we have no problems. I don't even care if you don't have the shades drawn because I shouldn't be peeping in your windows. But you step outside (and are not hot) we're going to have a conversation (if you're hot I'm likely to make as little noise as possible).

Privacy may be a right, but is anonymity? As always, your thoughts are welcome.

MS on the receiving end

Check out the story below. Go ahead. I'll wait.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Step-one-in-the-process-Microsoft-files-appeal-of-Word-injunction/1250694380

Did you read it? If not' it's OK.

Briefly, MS has been issued an injunction, that in a couple months time, they will be unable to sell Word 2003 and Word 2007 (Word 2010 is not affected by this case). The good news is that i4i (eye for eye - funny) says they are not planning on suing anyone other than Microsoft. At least that is what they are saying now. We'll see how this goes if their case holds up.

I have been reading a couple of posts about this topic and I am sad to see that a lot of people are of the opinion that since Microsoft makes so much money on the Office suite that they should get a pass. Wow. How do I even respond to that. I"m sorry, but if they have a valid case, how can you just let it go? Would it suck to not have any updates for Office 2K3 or 2K7? Yes, but you can't just ignore the law because they were making buckets of money off of it.

By the same token, as much as I would find it chuckle worthy if the verdict is not overturned, I can't imagine the wholesale chaos that will envelope the user community from students to IT support staff to deal with the fallout of it. Speaking as an IT guy, you can't necessarily just change your platform on a whim. It took us months of testing to get sign off on moving from Office 2000 to Office 2007. We had to modify some of our apps to use the new file formats and that took time. Where I work is NOT going to adopt an Open Source solution (don't ask me to explain it as I don't understand it myself). That would mean we sit unsupported until Office2010 comes out (hopefully a rush put on my MS, but not TOO much of a rush) and then we scramble to adopt.

It looks to me like MS has a couple of options.

1) Pay some royalty fee and settle the case
2) Issue a patch that prevents the allegedly infringing behavior in Word.
3) Rush 2010 and offer a free upgrade so as not to piss off their customers by leaving them without support
4) Win the appeal
5) Pay the fine and just let the chips fall where they may

MS, as described in the article, is working on the appeal. I am honestly kind of torn as to which way I want this to go. The jealous douche-bag in me wants MS to lose just to take them down a peg or too, but the IT guy in me wants to see MS win because otherwise things could get VERY ugly for me at work.

In Fairness

Below is a link to a transcript of one of the town hall's conducted by President Obama. In it he sort of answers the question of how a private insurer is supposed to compete with a "public option." He acknowledges that if it is a government organization he can see where there would be significant difficulty, but points out that Blue Cross/Blue Shield are non-profits as well and that for profits are still doing well. There are plenty in the insurance industry, my wife included, that would say otherwise with regards to both BC/BS being non-profit and with the assertion that the for-profits are doing well, but I can't say as I have no information. He also mentions an example of private businesses that compete with the government and are kinda beating its pants off (UPS/FedEx vs. USPS). It's food for thought but really light on specifics. It kinda boils down to "We need to be really careful in how we structure this thing."

I have not finished reading it, but plan to tonight.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/obamas_health_care_town_hall_i.html

It's my way or the highway.

It seems like civil discourse in the modern era is a relegated to what I used to do on the playground in the first grade.

"Blue is pretty."

"Pink is pretty."

"You're a big stupid head."

"You're a bigger stupid head."

If you disagree with me you are obviously an uninformed flame-troll put here by the (insert opposition)'s lobbyists to fear monger and scare the other poor unintelligent people out there who are not as intelligent as I obviously am because I cannot possibly be wrong and if you're disagreeing with me in any small way, then your opinion cannot possibly have any merit.

Should say that I am conservative by nature. Don't like the government telling me what to do. Think people should take personal responsibility for their own situation.

That being said, both sides do this. Of course Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do. So does Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. So does the President and every member of Congress. Obama and most other Democrats have said that they believe that if people just had all of the facts they would fall in line. Republicans say if you knew all the information you would run screaming for the hills. It's just an extension of the same I'm right and you're stupid argument you had in grade school. The difference now is that instead of a stupid head, you are "uninformed" or "un-American." We're all Americans. We all have the right to disagree with each other. We have the right to voice our opinions. You also have the right to ignore my opinions, but if you are an elected official, you ignore them at your political peril. I remember someone mentioning that "We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable." Where did that go?

Compounding the problem is that nobody seems to have the ability to compromise. There is no give and take anymore. Almost everything that has been done on this legislation has been along strict party lines. Now with a Deomcratic majority, the thought is if we can't get the Republican side to vote for this package, instead of compromising we will enact a procedure that was intended to deal with the federal budget and only require a simple majority to get it through. Sad.

Sadly, politics as usual. This is why people don't want to vote.

It is with great pleasure that I can say that I have a friend that while I tend to disagree with on a significant number of issues, we can still meet up and have a good time together and not let the fact that we have differences of opinion prevent us from enjoying each others company. I hope he enjoys the spirited debates as much as I do. :P You should check out his site sometime.

http://mofyc.blogspot.com/

Pat A.

Competition on health care (or insurance if you didn't read my last post)

Can someone explain to me how it is that a corporation that has shareholders and must pay employees an above govt grade salary to retain talent and compete with each other are supposed to compete with a health insurance provider that is managed and backed by the federal government? How do you, as a for-profit company, compete with someone on price when they have no profit motive? And let's face it. People will choose their insurance based on price because for the most part, people are short-sighted.

I realize that the health plan that is being proposed is SUPPOSED to be sustained by the premiums that are being forced into it by the mandated insurance coverage that will be forced upon us, but that is the same argument that was made for the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. We all say how that turned out when it looked like the might become insolvent. First of the bailouts. Yay.

Why is it again that businesses are being forced to provide health care to their employees? What was wrong with the tax credit idea? Go out and get your own insurance. Lose your job? Get another one? Want to change your plan? Do whatever you want. You don't have to go through an HR department during specific times of the year and only make changes once a year. It's your plan. You can do it whenever you want to.

Why punish businesses when their employees don't want coverage? If you should punish anyone it should be the employee. How do you determine who gets punished if you insist on punishing businesses? My understanding is that they want full AND part-time employees covered by businesses. What about the people who have multiple part-time jobs? Do each of those businesses get punished if the person instead chooses to opt out of an insurance plan? Wouldn't that be double-dipping?

Why can't people be charged more by a Health INSURANCE company (notice the emphasis on insurance - see my previous post) for a history of risky behavior like, I don't know, say... being fat? If I go out for Auto Insurance and I have a crappy driving history, or I go out to get a loan and I have a horrific credit history, I would pay more for the service being requested because I have demonstrated that I have trouble "behaving." Why should this be different for Medical INSURANCE? If you are talking health CARE, then it is a different issue. You are going to use the service and are not gambling like an insurance situation. Likely means you care about your health and are willing to live a healthier lifestyle than someone who just wants insurance.

At this point in my life, I would rather have health CARE than health INSURANCE. That is my choice. I am interested in not dying for another couple of dozen years. I plan to live long enough to torture my children, by being the best grandpa that ever there was. Just like my parents. Unfortunately my dad passed away with a lot of torture left undone. My mom is working diligently to take up his workload. Had my dad been more into preventative care, or not just manning up and dealing with the pain, he might still be here today. I don't know that either insurance OR care would have helped in his situation. He believed that his pain was just a sign of his getting older. No routine testing would have seen it.

In the end whether we as Americans are healthy or not is in a lot of ways up to us. It is our choices to over-eat, over-drink, smoke, over-medicate and ignore warning signs that make us healthy or sick. I would love it if in this debate a little less vilifying the health insurers, malpractice insurers, malpractice lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospital administration and government officials and a little more talk about the personal responsibility that we should all be taking for the situation.

I think that the reason we have skyrocketing health care costs is because we as a society are under the impression that we should be able to take a pill that fixes what is wrong or have a surgery or some other quick fix instead of living our lives in a way that prevents us from getting sick in the first place. I am pretty sure that at no point in my dad's VERY BRIEF (less than a week) battle with cancer did he at any point, for one second blame the insurance company, the hospital or his doctor. I think that he realized that if he had just seen someone about the excruciating pain he was in sooner, he could have had a fighting chance. But by the time he did, it was too late.

How about we stop blaiming everyone but ourselves (which is par for the course) and start to take some responsibility for our own health problems. I was recently diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Doctor told me if I didn't get my shit straightened out, I would probably end up stabbing myself with needles multiple times a day. Now that is motivation. He gave me some drugs and I worked on modifying my diet. To my surprise, and my doctor's surprise, I became really active in fixing the situation. I took responsibilty for being the raging fat-ass that I am and with my blood sugar so high I immediately took the Atkins approach and drastically cut carbs. Found out from some reading materials that you actually DO need carbs. Apparently if you blood sugar frops too loe you pass out and never wake up again. That idea sucked, so I started eating some. I asked him to refer me to a dietitian and, voila, she said I needed to eat more. She helped me to make better choices. I can still have some of the crap I would normally eat, but I try to avoid most anything deep fried. It hurts, but the other choice is popping handfuls of pills. I am not a pill person. I don't like the idea that I need a pill to live, and that the only reason I do is because I can't control myself. It's not my thing. Longer than I planned on story short, I have dropped my Blood Glucose Levels from 350 down to a reasonable 100. I have dropped nearly 35 ponds. That's just with the diet change. I haven't really added exercise to the equation yet. that is proving a tougher nut to crack.

This is what America needs to do. Probably 70% (I made this number up, it is not based on any fact or evidence) of the "diseases" out there are a result of being a raging fat-ass. Drop some pounds as a nation and watch your spending on health care drop as well.

I think that everyone should take responsibility for their own health. I guess that it boils down to the fact that I believe that everyone should be free to make their own decisions. About health care, health insurance, being healthy, how to be healthy. But if you have the freedom to make the choice, then you have to also take responsibility when the choices you make, put your health in jeopardy. I guess the thing I don't like the most about the concept of universal health care, or a public option, or whatever you want to call it, is that I don't like that a government run option will eventually take away my CHOICE. First they mandate you have to have coverage, then they impose the "sin taxes" like they have on smoking. They first apply it to sugar drinks because they cause diabetes. Then they apply it to fatty foods because they cause heart disease. And it goes on from there. Eventually you will be told that you will eat X for breakfast, Y for lunch, and if you deviate from these prescriptions you will be a penalty. And it will all be done in the name of saving on health care costs.

Wow. That was kind of all over the damn place.

My name is Pat Aurience and I am a fat-bastard. But, I am working on it.

Health INSURANCE vs. Health CARE

I am getting really tired of people spouting off about health INSURANCE when they mean health CARE.

People have this bizarre delusion that getting your drugs for $10 and spending $20 on a visit to your doctor is health insurance. This is not health insurance. This is health care. If you think it is insurance, you have no idea what insurance actually is. This is pretty sad as a lot of us have insurance and we only expect it to provide for us a benefit in the manner that insurance is supposed to. Insurance is gambling. You are betting that you will need help with a situation, the insurer is betting that you will not.

I have home owners insurance. I pay a very reasonable amount of money every month to a company who is betting that my house will not burn down, or be destroyed in a tornado or some other such CATASTROPHIC event. I do not expect for my premium that someone will come and mow my lawn, remove my snow, paint my house and landscape my lawn. They have organizations to do that. It's called a home owners association. You pay a fee and they come and do those things for you and the other folks in your community. That is not insurance.

I have life insurance. I pay a fee and in the event that I meet an untimely end, my wife and children have a shot at keeping the house and being comfortable. They don't send me money once a month to help pay my mortgage. That's not life insurance. That's an annuity. You can buy them, but they are kind of stupid unless you are retiring. They are kind of like reverse insurance. You spend a large lump sum to get a bunch of small payments instead of a bunch of small payments to get a large lump sum.

I have auto insurance. I don't get my car repaired for free, or regular maintenance for free, but if I wreck my car in an accident, it gets repaired or replaced.

Health insurance is to protect against catastrophic problems. What we are being asked to provide is preventative medicine which is the essence of an HMO. The thing I can't figure out is why is it that what everyone is gunning for when nobody seemed to like them.

I guess I am just too stupid to get it.

Pat.