I bet you thought this blog was dead, but look down there. There's a new post, and it actually says something other than, "There will be more posts." It is a real, honest-to-goodness post, with opinions and controversy and all of that fun stuff.
I am not making any promises yet on how often I will be posting, but I am back. At the very least, I can get new posts out here on the weekends, when I don't have a billion other things to do.
A little update, for those who are keeping score. Heather and I are both working full time now, office hours with desks and all of that jazz. I spend my days answering bureaucrats and and troubleshooting problems. She spends her days answering people who are apparently genuinely surprised that they have to pay a phone bill every month. These are certainly ... interesting positions, but they pay the bills. The boys are now teenagers, with all that entails. Monday through Friday exists in something of a haze, which I'm sure most working parents would recognize.
I'm putting the blog back together. I'm trying to put other writings back together as well. Time. Time. Time. Dinner is already cooking, and it's not even noon. Do you get the idea?
Take a look at the layout on the blog. I don't remember for certain, but I think blogger.com went and changed some settings on me. Let me know if you see anything you think could be improved. I don't promise that I will take your suggestions (we all know how I am about doing things my own way), but I am looking for suggestions, if suggestions are to be had. Keep an eye on the news and let me know if you see anything absurd. If it is truly absurd, I have probably seen it (we also all know how obsessed I am with the absurd), but I might miss something. I don't watch TV, so I don't get the up-to-the-minute updates. We'll keep each other informed, and have fun doing it.
See you next time.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Testing The Waters
The busybodies are at it again.
The Food and Drug Administration's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee released a statement Friday concluding that removing menthol cigarettes from the market would benefit public health. The panel was quick to point out that it was not actually recommending the legal removal of menthol cigarettes from the market, but why else release such a statement? Did that really require a year-long study? Is there anyone who does not already know that not smoking would improve health, public or otherwise? This is nothing more than floating a trial balloon to determine what the public reaction might be to such a ban.
The FDA knows that they are on shaky ground with this. The logic is abysmal. Menthol cigarettes account for only about 30% of smokers in America and there is no evidence that the availability of menthol cigarettes increases the likelihood of youth smoking (that favorite bogeyman that is used to justify so much regulation). From a logical standpoint, there is no justification for banning only a particular type of cigarette, which accounts for such a small percentage of overall smokers. This is how it works, though. You start with the small groups who have less defenders. Once you remove their freedoms, it becomes easier to move on to the next group and, as you progress, more and more people have lost freedoms and they did not even realize they were at risk.
Full disclosure: I smoke, and it just so happens that I smoke menthol cigarettes. I know that this is a bad decision, but it is my decision to make. Your decision is whether or not you smoke.
"But I have a right to clean air!" No, you don't. If you do, explain to me those factories, automobiles, processing plants, and so many other commonplace components of modern life that each have a much greater impact on your air quality than cigarette smoke. Unless you are standing in a smoker's hip pocket, or are in an enclosed space with many smokers, cigarette smoke has no measurable impact on your air quality. If every smoker on the planet stepped outside and lit up at once, the overall air quality would not even notice. Contrary to the claims of the Whiny Police, cigarette smoke just does not have that great an impact.
"But I have to pay for your additional health care." Generally speaking, the people who make this claim are the same idiots who insist that we all have to pay for everyone else's health care in the first place. You created the problem. Live with it. Otherwise, I have to pay for your extra health care every time one of you Back to Nature panzies gets hurt on a hike because you don't actually know anything about nature, so we're going to ban wilderness hiking. I have to pay for your additional health care every time one of your "good for the environment" toy cars gets turned into modern art on the highway, so we're going to ban subcompact cars. Stop and consider how the logic can be applied before you attempt to apply it. It doesn't just ban things you don't like.
"But it's bad for you and smoking kills." So? Skydiving is not exactly the best way to improve your life expectancy, but it is still legal. Drinking alcohol leads to far more deaths every year than cigarette smoking, and we all know how well Prohibition worked out.
That, of course, is the point. Prohibition was an abject failure that turned a common past time into a criminal enterprise and created such memorable characters as Al Capone. The so called War on Drugs has done no better (though politicians of the early 20th Century were apparently better able to admit their mistakes). The outright banning of a commonly used product that has otherwise been legal forever has never had positive results, and the Powers That Be have possibly figured that out. So, instead of an outright ban, they want to sneak their way through incremental bans, get the frog used to the hot water before it boils so that the silly creature doesn't just jump out of the pot.
The idea, however, is not logically tenable. If smoking is legal, which it is, then you have no business using the government bully stick to encourage people to quit. If smoking is legal, which it is, then you have no business targeting one aspect of that industry, which is no more dangerous and no closer to illegal than any other. Logically, you have two choices: ban smoking outright (and create yet another criminal era of prohibition) or butt out and mind your own business.
You people who support such a ban, who can't seem to figure out that the same power can be used against you once one of your habits is deemed sufficiently unpopular, are definitely a big part of the problem in modern America. If we all stick together and defend all of our freedoms then we cannot be defeated. Allow this divide and conquer idea to continue, however, and you will eventually achieve the America you deserve.
The Food and Drug Administration's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee released a statement Friday concluding that removing menthol cigarettes from the market would benefit public health. The panel was quick to point out that it was not actually recommending the legal removal of menthol cigarettes from the market, but why else release such a statement? Did that really require a year-long study? Is there anyone who does not already know that not smoking would improve health, public or otherwise? This is nothing more than floating a trial balloon to determine what the public reaction might be to such a ban.
The FDA knows that they are on shaky ground with this. The logic is abysmal. Menthol cigarettes account for only about 30% of smokers in America and there is no evidence that the availability of menthol cigarettes increases the likelihood of youth smoking (that favorite bogeyman that is used to justify so much regulation). From a logical standpoint, there is no justification for banning only a particular type of cigarette, which accounts for such a small percentage of overall smokers. This is how it works, though. You start with the small groups who have less defenders. Once you remove their freedoms, it becomes easier to move on to the next group and, as you progress, more and more people have lost freedoms and they did not even realize they were at risk.
Full disclosure: I smoke, and it just so happens that I smoke menthol cigarettes. I know that this is a bad decision, but it is my decision to make. Your decision is whether or not you smoke.
"But I have a right to clean air!" No, you don't. If you do, explain to me those factories, automobiles, processing plants, and so many other commonplace components of modern life that each have a much greater impact on your air quality than cigarette smoke. Unless you are standing in a smoker's hip pocket, or are in an enclosed space with many smokers, cigarette smoke has no measurable impact on your air quality. If every smoker on the planet stepped outside and lit up at once, the overall air quality would not even notice. Contrary to the claims of the Whiny Police, cigarette smoke just does not have that great an impact.
"But I have to pay for your additional health care." Generally speaking, the people who make this claim are the same idiots who insist that we all have to pay for everyone else's health care in the first place. You created the problem. Live with it. Otherwise, I have to pay for your extra health care every time one of you Back to Nature panzies gets hurt on a hike because you don't actually know anything about nature, so we're going to ban wilderness hiking. I have to pay for your additional health care every time one of your "good for the environment" toy cars gets turned into modern art on the highway, so we're going to ban subcompact cars. Stop and consider how the logic can be applied before you attempt to apply it. It doesn't just ban things you don't like.
"But it's bad for you and smoking kills." So? Skydiving is not exactly the best way to improve your life expectancy, but it is still legal. Drinking alcohol leads to far more deaths every year than cigarette smoking, and we all know how well Prohibition worked out.
That, of course, is the point. Prohibition was an abject failure that turned a common past time into a criminal enterprise and created such memorable characters as Al Capone. The so called War on Drugs has done no better (though politicians of the early 20th Century were apparently better able to admit their mistakes). The outright banning of a commonly used product that has otherwise been legal forever has never had positive results, and the Powers That Be have possibly figured that out. So, instead of an outright ban, they want to sneak their way through incremental bans, get the frog used to the hot water before it boils so that the silly creature doesn't just jump out of the pot.
The idea, however, is not logically tenable. If smoking is legal, which it is, then you have no business using the government bully stick to encourage people to quit. If smoking is legal, which it is, then you have no business targeting one aspect of that industry, which is no more dangerous and no closer to illegal than any other. Logically, you have two choices: ban smoking outright (and create yet another criminal era of prohibition) or butt out and mind your own business.
You people who support such a ban, who can't seem to figure out that the same power can be used against you once one of your habits is deemed sufficiently unpopular, are definitely a big part of the problem in modern America. If we all stick together and defend all of our freedoms then we cannot be defeated. Allow this divide and conquer idea to continue, however, and you will eventually achieve the America you deserve.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Prolonged Absence
For those of you not in the know, I have recently changed positions at my paying job. This has been an overall positive (hands down!) but has also resulted in the work load being much heavier than it was in the past. I will try to get a new writing schedule figured out (and for those who follow my other writing identities, yes that means them too, sorry) but, until then, I hope you will have patience with me. We've gone through this before and always find our way out the other side.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Annoying Compassion?
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that made me scratch my head. It read: "Annoy a conservative - Show compassion". I shouldn't say it made me scratch my head because I encounter this attitude frequently, but it still doesn't make sense. Allow me to explain why this is both a stupid statement and a perfect summary of some of the modern Left.
I should admit up front that, in most cases, I am no more compassionate than I am tolerant. It's not that I am (or claim to be) heartless, it is just that I have priorities, and compassion ranks rather low on that list. If we were to make a list of common virtues - fair, honest, just, compassionate, etc. - it is say to say that, for me, compassionate would not make the top ten. What I am writing today does not exactly describe me, but I am the exception. Take an honest look around you and you would know that is true.
The point of this bumper sticker, of course, is that conservatives are not compassionate, do not believe in compassion, or, frankly, are heartless monsters. No one who lives in the real world can honestly make this claim, and yet modern Leftists do make this claim often. How does that work? Well, "real world" and "honestly" are a couple of very important parts of that sentence and the specific modern Leftists who make this claim do not exactly have a good working relationship with either concept.
Reading the attitudes expressed in these posts, it should come as no surprise that most of the people with whom I usually associate would be labeled as conservative (many are like me and only seem conservative in some areas but even they are often more conservative than not - what might be surprising is the number of friends I have who could not be described as conservative in any shape, form, or fashion). I often irritate the hell out of them (there are many conservative ideologies with which I simply will not play along) but it usually works out because my core beliefs (TANSTAAFL and MYODB) are such that the pitfalls can be worked around.
My point is that I know many conservatives, and I know these people on a personal level. I see their daily activities and their political pontificating. I don't just see what they say they believe, I see what their actions demonstrate they believe. Let me tell you about the conservative who spends every winter helping to collect Christmas toys for under-privileged children, regardless of what kind of weather that means standing around in. Let me tell you about the conservative who cries at the funeral of a stranger, because that stranger was important to a non-stranger. Let me tell you about the conservative who always has a meal for someone who needs it, even though that conservative lives on a limited fixed income. Let me tell you about the conservative who has given a home and a family to children who lost the original through abuse and neglect. Don't tell me conservatives aren't compassionate because I will call you a liar.
That is the basis of this warped modern Left, though. Deny reality, lie about the other side, and apply labels that just don't fit. If you disagree with them about healthcare, they won't look to see why you disagree. They'll just say you have no compassion. If you disagree with them about immigration, they won't look to see why you disagree. They'll just say you have no compassion. If you disagree with them about how taxes should be spent, they won't look to see why you disagree. They'll just say you have no compassion. It is so much easier when you don't have to debate with your opponent. Just insult them, deny their humanity, and ignore them.
It may be easier, but it isn't true and it isn't right. "You're racist." "You don't care about the environment." "You don't care about the poor." "Do it for the children." "You have no compassion." Whenever you hear these phrases (or many more like them) you should be warned that you are probably not dealing with someone who is arguing through facts. You're dealing with someone who wants to derail debate by punching emotional hot buttons. You are not dealing with someone who is interested in honesty, reality, or an exchange of ideas. You are dealing with a bully who is only interested in getting his own way, by any means necessary. Bullies have no place in the realm of policy debate.
Mature adults can disagree without resulting to childish non sequiturs. You'll notice I didn't say "childish insults" because "insult" is in the eye of the beholder. Much of what I say can be construed as insulting, but it cannot be construed as non sequitur. In a real debate, one fact (or opinion) follows another, in an identifiable line. When you have to jump to something that does not follow from what is being said, that is not a real debate and it is a tactic not being used by a mature adult.
Of course, mature adults don't assume that something they do will annoy someone else just because that someone else doesn't do it. Assuming people to be that thin skinned says more about you than about anyone else.
I should admit up front that, in most cases, I am no more compassionate than I am tolerant. It's not that I am (or claim to be) heartless, it is just that I have priorities, and compassion ranks rather low on that list. If we were to make a list of common virtues - fair, honest, just, compassionate, etc. - it is say to say that, for me, compassionate would not make the top ten. What I am writing today does not exactly describe me, but I am the exception. Take an honest look around you and you would know that is true.
The point of this bumper sticker, of course, is that conservatives are not compassionate, do not believe in compassion, or, frankly, are heartless monsters. No one who lives in the real world can honestly make this claim, and yet modern Leftists do make this claim often. How does that work? Well, "real world" and "honestly" are a couple of very important parts of that sentence and the specific modern Leftists who make this claim do not exactly have a good working relationship with either concept.
Reading the attitudes expressed in these posts, it should come as no surprise that most of the people with whom I usually associate would be labeled as conservative (many are like me and only seem conservative in some areas but even they are often more conservative than not - what might be surprising is the number of friends I have who could not be described as conservative in any shape, form, or fashion). I often irritate the hell out of them (there are many conservative ideologies with which I simply will not play along) but it usually works out because my core beliefs (TANSTAAFL and MYODB) are such that the pitfalls can be worked around.
My point is that I know many conservatives, and I know these people on a personal level. I see their daily activities and their political pontificating. I don't just see what they say they believe, I see what their actions demonstrate they believe. Let me tell you about the conservative who spends every winter helping to collect Christmas toys for under-privileged children, regardless of what kind of weather that means standing around in. Let me tell you about the conservative who cries at the funeral of a stranger, because that stranger was important to a non-stranger. Let me tell you about the conservative who always has a meal for someone who needs it, even though that conservative lives on a limited fixed income. Let me tell you about the conservative who has given a home and a family to children who lost the original through abuse and neglect. Don't tell me conservatives aren't compassionate because I will call you a liar.
That is the basis of this warped modern Left, though. Deny reality, lie about the other side, and apply labels that just don't fit. If you disagree with them about healthcare, they won't look to see why you disagree. They'll just say you have no compassion. If you disagree with them about immigration, they won't look to see why you disagree. They'll just say you have no compassion. If you disagree with them about how taxes should be spent, they won't look to see why you disagree. They'll just say you have no compassion. It is so much easier when you don't have to debate with your opponent. Just insult them, deny their humanity, and ignore them.
It may be easier, but it isn't true and it isn't right. "You're racist." "You don't care about the environment." "You don't care about the poor." "Do it for the children." "You have no compassion." Whenever you hear these phrases (or many more like them) you should be warned that you are probably not dealing with someone who is arguing through facts. You're dealing with someone who wants to derail debate by punching emotional hot buttons. You are not dealing with someone who is interested in honesty, reality, or an exchange of ideas. You are dealing with a bully who is only interested in getting his own way, by any means necessary. Bullies have no place in the realm of policy debate.
Mature adults can disagree without resulting to childish non sequiturs. You'll notice I didn't say "childish insults" because "insult" is in the eye of the beholder. Much of what I say can be construed as insulting, but it cannot be construed as non sequitur. In a real debate, one fact (or opinion) follows another, in an identifiable line. When you have to jump to something that does not follow from what is being said, that is not a real debate and it is a tactic not being used by a mature adult.
Of course, mature adults don't assume that something they do will annoy someone else just because that someone else doesn't do it. Assuming people to be that thin skinned says more about you than about anyone else.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Intolerance of the Tolerant
Or should that be the tolerance of the intolerant? I can't tell anymore.
Let me be perfectly clear right up front. I don't believe in tolerance, at least not in the way it is defined by the modern Oh So Tolerant crowd. The idea that we should tolerate everything and everyone is laughable. Rational judgment is part of what it means to be human, and that includes judging between what is and is not tolerable.
Should I tolerate the man who is trying to kill me? Of course not. Should I tolerate the man who tries to steal the food from my children? Absolutely not. Should I tolerate something that is abhorrent to my core beliefs? How is that even possible?
It is not and cannot be tolerance or the absence of tolerance that defines proper behavior. It is, rather, the reason for that tolerance or absence of tolerance and it is the action (or actions) taken in response. Only this standard can produce proper behavior. Don't believe me? Take a look at the behavior of the crowd whose claim is that tolerance, itself, is the standard.
These people preach tolerance in all things and constantly use that standard to attack anyone they deem as intolerant. Of course, in most cases, simply disagreeing with them is grounds for being deemed intolerant (good thing I admit to being intolerant - rather takes the sting out of their attacks). If you cross one of their lines, they feel fully justified in falling upon you with all of the wrath of their so-called tolerance.
It was those preaching tolerance who felt justified in stealing every issue of a college newspaper because it contained an editorial they deemed to be intolerant.
It was those preaching tolerance who felt justified in invading and disrupting a college speaking engagement because they deemed the speaker (who had been invited by the people who were there to hear him) to be intolerant.
It has been those preaching tolerance who have suggested that insulting the president should be an arresting offense (never mind the fact that they hurled insults and more at the previous president).
It has been those preaching tolerance who have claimed in one breath that there should be no debate about the Ground Zero Mosque (because "we were not attacked by Islam") and, in the very next breath, declare that all religion should be banned (I guess we were attacked by "all religion" when I wasn't looking).
This has been an ongoing problem, as should be suggested by the list of examples (that first listed instance happened about five years ago, if I remember correctly), but that last example was the reason I decided to write this article. I participated in that "debate" and was almost stopped dead in my tracks by the direction it went. One group of people do not want a particular building erected in a particular location and they are intolerant, yet some of the very people screaming at them about intolerance declare that all religion should be banned. That is supposed to be an example of tolerance?
Of course that is not an example of tolerance. What that is an example of is the fact that most people actually think the way I do on this subject, they just don't state it as such because they believe that would make them look bad. Human beings are not tolerant creatures. We tolerate what we believe is right to tolerate and we do not tolerate what we believe is not right to tolerate. The only thing preaching tolerance accomplishes is convincing people to lie about their motives and claim to be tolerant when they obviously are not.
Being intolerant is no sin. Being intolerant for stupid reasons is. Acting stupidly because of your intolerance is. I don't tolerate stupid people, but I don't run around slapping every stupid person I see (that would be quite an exercise program). Why would I? That would be a gross overreaction and it would not accomplish one single useful thing.
Be honest about your life. Don't lie about what you will or will not tolerate and certainly don't lie about the fact that there are things you will not tolerate. Check your reasons for those, though, and make sure they make sense. Check your actions in regard to what you will not tolerate and make sure those actions are in proportion. Make sure you are not making things worse. Make sure you are not acting the same way you claim to not tolerate.
Most of us won't tolerate a fly in the kitchen, but we don't swat the fly with a bomb. Think about it.
Let me be perfectly clear right up front. I don't believe in tolerance, at least not in the way it is defined by the modern Oh So Tolerant crowd. The idea that we should tolerate everything and everyone is laughable. Rational judgment is part of what it means to be human, and that includes judging between what is and is not tolerable.
Should I tolerate the man who is trying to kill me? Of course not. Should I tolerate the man who tries to steal the food from my children? Absolutely not. Should I tolerate something that is abhorrent to my core beliefs? How is that even possible?
It is not and cannot be tolerance or the absence of tolerance that defines proper behavior. It is, rather, the reason for that tolerance or absence of tolerance and it is the action (or actions) taken in response. Only this standard can produce proper behavior. Don't believe me? Take a look at the behavior of the crowd whose claim is that tolerance, itself, is the standard.
These people preach tolerance in all things and constantly use that standard to attack anyone they deem as intolerant. Of course, in most cases, simply disagreeing with them is grounds for being deemed intolerant (good thing I admit to being intolerant - rather takes the sting out of their attacks). If you cross one of their lines, they feel fully justified in falling upon you with all of the wrath of their so-called tolerance.
It was those preaching tolerance who felt justified in stealing every issue of a college newspaper because it contained an editorial they deemed to be intolerant.
It was those preaching tolerance who felt justified in invading and disrupting a college speaking engagement because they deemed the speaker (who had been invited by the people who were there to hear him) to be intolerant.
It has been those preaching tolerance who have suggested that insulting the president should be an arresting offense (never mind the fact that they hurled insults and more at the previous president).
It has been those preaching tolerance who have claimed in one breath that there should be no debate about the Ground Zero Mosque (because "we were not attacked by Islam") and, in the very next breath, declare that all religion should be banned (I guess we were attacked by "all religion" when I wasn't looking).
This has been an ongoing problem, as should be suggested by the list of examples (that first listed instance happened about five years ago, if I remember correctly), but that last example was the reason I decided to write this article. I participated in that "debate" and was almost stopped dead in my tracks by the direction it went. One group of people do not want a particular building erected in a particular location and they are intolerant, yet some of the very people screaming at them about intolerance declare that all religion should be banned. That is supposed to be an example of tolerance?
Of course that is not an example of tolerance. What that is an example of is the fact that most people actually think the way I do on this subject, they just don't state it as such because they believe that would make them look bad. Human beings are not tolerant creatures. We tolerate what we believe is right to tolerate and we do not tolerate what we believe is not right to tolerate. The only thing preaching tolerance accomplishes is convincing people to lie about their motives and claim to be tolerant when they obviously are not.
Being intolerant is no sin. Being intolerant for stupid reasons is. Acting stupidly because of your intolerance is. I don't tolerate stupid people, but I don't run around slapping every stupid person I see (that would be quite an exercise program). Why would I? That would be a gross overreaction and it would not accomplish one single useful thing.
Be honest about your life. Don't lie about what you will or will not tolerate and certainly don't lie about the fact that there are things you will not tolerate. Check your reasons for those, though, and make sure they make sense. Check your actions in regard to what you will not tolerate and make sure those actions are in proportion. Make sure you are not making things worse. Make sure you are not acting the same way you claim to not tolerate.
Most of us won't tolerate a fly in the kitchen, but we don't swat the fly with a bomb. Think about it.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Harry Reid and Mixed Messages
I probably should not accuse Senator Reid of "mixed messages". His "I will do anything to get re-elected" message is pretty clear and undiluted - though, somehow, that is not the message he wants us to notice - but his actions create mixed messages in ways that are detrimental to our country, to freedom, and to good sense. They also create mixed messages in a way I have always opposed, so my opposition to this one is not necessarily specific to the bills in question.
The specific action this time is Reid's declared decision to tack the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors) Act as an amendment onto the upcoming defense appropriations bill. A defense bill that almost always passes easily with bilateral support. A defense bill that pays for our military. A defense bill that should never be twisted for the purpose of supporting the campaigns of our professional criminal class in Congress.
The short description of the DREAM Act is that it is an illegal immigration amnesty act. Period. The longer description is that it gives a path to amnesty to "undocumented aliens" who entered this country before the age of 16, have been here at least 5 years, and have received a High School Diploma or GED or are attending college. It also gives a route to extra scholarships and grants for said "undocumented alien" to continue his or her education. The DREAM act has been floating around since 2001 and has had so little support that it has rarely even come up for vote, and has never seen even the possibility of success on those rare occasions when it has made it out of committee.
To say that the DREAM Act is controversial is to say that stepping on a land mine hurts.
This story gets worse when you add in the fact that this simple defense appropriations bill has already been weighed down by the addition of an amendment to repeal the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, hardly a noncontroversial amendment itself.
Of all the low down, dirty, rotten tricks! In essence, the Democrats (and Reid specifically) are attempting to hold the defense bill hostage by loading it up with Easter Eggs which are great for their party but unpalatable to the other side. They are taking a bill that would normally have bilateral support and turning it into just another ideological battleground. In this manner, the Republicans either have to vote for something they strongly oppose or vote against something they strongly support. Then, of course, the Democrats get to lie about the results either way. If the law passes it's, "See, even the Republicans are for this," when everyone knows the Republicans were only voting for the military, and if the law fails it's, "See, the Republicans really hate the military," when everyone knows the Republicans were really voting against the DREAM. It is a lose-lose for everyone except far left career criminals.
This should be impossible. This should be illegal! A single bill should not require people to vote in two different directions. A bill that has no chance on its own should not be forced down people's throats by tacking it onto an easy win. The entire bill amendment/rider process is flush with corruption and abuse and needs to go away yesterday!
Some states include in their constitution a prohibition against just this behavior. By their state constitutions, a state bill must be about one subject and only one subject and cannot be used to sneak additional laws into play. I have said for decades that we need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that does the same. Everyone talks about corruption in Congress, but no one does anything about it. This would do something about it. This would remove one of their most blatant tools of corruption. Of course, if we trimmed them back to Constitutional authority and took away their assumed power to pass laws on anything and everything that enters their crooked little minds, that would go a long way toward stamping out their corruption. It is a bit more difficult to be corrupt when you have nothing to sell.
This is not about Right or Left, Democrat or Republican. This same practice occurred under Republicans and will occur again regardless of which party holds office. This is not even about whether or not you like the laws in question. If you like them so much, get up off your lazy butts and campaign for them to have a chance on their own! This is about the inherently corrupt process of making a Frankenstein's monster out of disparate, unrelated bills and forcing people to vote against their conscience or true desires.
Everyone wants a better America, but you cannot have a better anything through corruption. The corruption will always eat through and destroy what you were trying to build. If you truly want a better country then fight against corruption, even when that corruption appears to be on your side.
The specific action this time is Reid's declared decision to tack the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors) Act as an amendment onto the upcoming defense appropriations bill. A defense bill that almost always passes easily with bilateral support. A defense bill that pays for our military. A defense bill that should never be twisted for the purpose of supporting the campaigns of our professional criminal class in Congress.
The short description of the DREAM Act is that it is an illegal immigration amnesty act. Period. The longer description is that it gives a path to amnesty to "undocumented aliens" who entered this country before the age of 16, have been here at least 5 years, and have received a High School Diploma or GED or are attending college. It also gives a route to extra scholarships and grants for said "undocumented alien" to continue his or her education. The DREAM act has been floating around since 2001 and has had so little support that it has rarely even come up for vote, and has never seen even the possibility of success on those rare occasions when it has made it out of committee.
To say that the DREAM Act is controversial is to say that stepping on a land mine hurts.
This story gets worse when you add in the fact that this simple defense appropriations bill has already been weighed down by the addition of an amendment to repeal the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, hardly a noncontroversial amendment itself.
Of all the low down, dirty, rotten tricks! In essence, the Democrats (and Reid specifically) are attempting to hold the defense bill hostage by loading it up with Easter Eggs which are great for their party but unpalatable to the other side. They are taking a bill that would normally have bilateral support and turning it into just another ideological battleground. In this manner, the Republicans either have to vote for something they strongly oppose or vote against something they strongly support. Then, of course, the Democrats get to lie about the results either way. If the law passes it's, "See, even the Republicans are for this," when everyone knows the Republicans were only voting for the military, and if the law fails it's, "See, the Republicans really hate the military," when everyone knows the Republicans were really voting against the DREAM. It is a lose-lose for everyone except far left career criminals.
This should be impossible. This should be illegal! A single bill should not require people to vote in two different directions. A bill that has no chance on its own should not be forced down people's throats by tacking it onto an easy win. The entire bill amendment/rider process is flush with corruption and abuse and needs to go away yesterday!
Some states include in their constitution a prohibition against just this behavior. By their state constitutions, a state bill must be about one subject and only one subject and cannot be used to sneak additional laws into play. I have said for decades that we need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that does the same. Everyone talks about corruption in Congress, but no one does anything about it. This would do something about it. This would remove one of their most blatant tools of corruption. Of course, if we trimmed them back to Constitutional authority and took away their assumed power to pass laws on anything and everything that enters their crooked little minds, that would go a long way toward stamping out their corruption. It is a bit more difficult to be corrupt when you have nothing to sell.
This is not about Right or Left, Democrat or Republican. This same practice occurred under Republicans and will occur again regardless of which party holds office. This is not even about whether or not you like the laws in question. If you like them so much, get up off your lazy butts and campaign for them to have a chance on their own! This is about the inherently corrupt process of making a Frankenstein's monster out of disparate, unrelated bills and forcing people to vote against their conscience or true desires.
Everyone wants a better America, but you cannot have a better anything through corruption. The corruption will always eat through and destroy what you were trying to build. If you truly want a better country then fight against corruption, even when that corruption appears to be on your side.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
In Memory 9-11
On this day, nine years ago, 2,974 people were killed because some people still believe that violence in the name of religion is acceptable human behavior.
This statement is not exclusive to the creatures (and no, I will never refer to indiscriminate murderers as human beings) who attacked us on September 11, 2001, but it certainly applies. That attack was barbaric, plain and simple. Regardless of one's opinion on war or anything of that nature, the people on those planes, the people in those buildings, the people who were only going about their daily lives cannot be defined as combatants in any meaningful way. Nearly 3,000 innocent bystanders dead, not as collateral damage, but as intentional targets. The distinction matters, though there are many who try to cover it up.
If you disagree with war at all times and for all reasons then no amount of discussion will persuade you. We don't speak the same language, so it is a waste of time for us to speak. It amazes me, though, how often it is these very people who make excuses for the other side yet refuse to even hear a defense for ours.
If, however, you and I do speak a common tongue, if you can find meaning in the words I write - whether or not you agree with them - then I hope that you will at least consider what I have to say.
I believe in force as an answer to force, but never as an initiating factor. Translation: It is never justified to initiate violence but it may be justified to retaliate. For defense, to stop violence, to prevent further violence. I believe these may all be justifiable uses of force. There really are times when nothing else will work but to fight fire with fire.
If you have to fight then people are going to get hurt. If you have to fight a war then people are going to die. Going in with your eyes closed will not change reality. To make matters worse, when you fight a war, some people who die will be those who were only caught in the crossfire. This can be minimized, but I know of no way to prevent it completely. Accidents happen under the best of circumstances.
Those who love to bash America and America's military love to talk about collateral damage while ignoring how much effort America's military puts into trying to avoid or minimize such damage. I am something of a history buff and I know of no major military force in history that has put so much effort into trying to avoid or minimize collateral damage as the modern American military. To dismiss this fact is to argue through dishonesty.
Collateral damage cannot be compared with what happened on September 11, 2001. That was not collateral damage! Those were not unintended targets! Nearly 3,000 civilians died because they were targeted for death!
Has America ever attacked civilians in such a manner? Yes, we have, in a declared war - which this was not! - as a last ditch effort, and nearly 70 years ago. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even America's bombing targets have been carefully selected as military targets and to minimize civilian casualties. Think about it. With America's overwhelming bombing capabilities, how long could any war last if we were not intentionally holding back to minimize collateral damage? There are few nations in the world who could stand against us if we played by the same rules as the creatures who attacked us on 9-11.
But we don't play by those rules, and it is past time that the America bashers acknowledged and admitted that fact.
On this day, nine years ago, 2,974 people were killed because some people still believe that violence in the name of religion is acceptable human behavior. Those people were monsters and those who support them are monsters. 2,974 people died - and countless more continue to die - because monsters have been allowed to roam this world unopposed. Other people make excuses and stroke their own egos, but the monsters are still roaming this world. Have you forgotten what those monsters are willing to do? We have not!
This statement is not exclusive to the creatures (and no, I will never refer to indiscriminate murderers as human beings) who attacked us on September 11, 2001, but it certainly applies. That attack was barbaric, plain and simple. Regardless of one's opinion on war or anything of that nature, the people on those planes, the people in those buildings, the people who were only going about their daily lives cannot be defined as combatants in any meaningful way. Nearly 3,000 innocent bystanders dead, not as collateral damage, but as intentional targets. The distinction matters, though there are many who try to cover it up.
If you disagree with war at all times and for all reasons then no amount of discussion will persuade you. We don't speak the same language, so it is a waste of time for us to speak. It amazes me, though, how often it is these very people who make excuses for the other side yet refuse to even hear a defense for ours.
If, however, you and I do speak a common tongue, if you can find meaning in the words I write - whether or not you agree with them - then I hope that you will at least consider what I have to say.
I believe in force as an answer to force, but never as an initiating factor. Translation: It is never justified to initiate violence but it may be justified to retaliate. For defense, to stop violence, to prevent further violence. I believe these may all be justifiable uses of force. There really are times when nothing else will work but to fight fire with fire.
If you have to fight then people are going to get hurt. If you have to fight a war then people are going to die. Going in with your eyes closed will not change reality. To make matters worse, when you fight a war, some people who die will be those who were only caught in the crossfire. This can be minimized, but I know of no way to prevent it completely. Accidents happen under the best of circumstances.
Those who love to bash America and America's military love to talk about collateral damage while ignoring how much effort America's military puts into trying to avoid or minimize such damage. I am something of a history buff and I know of no major military force in history that has put so much effort into trying to avoid or minimize collateral damage as the modern American military. To dismiss this fact is to argue through dishonesty.
Collateral damage cannot be compared with what happened on September 11, 2001. That was not collateral damage! Those were not unintended targets! Nearly 3,000 civilians died because they were targeted for death!
Has America ever attacked civilians in such a manner? Yes, we have, in a declared war - which this was not! - as a last ditch effort, and nearly 70 years ago. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even America's bombing targets have been carefully selected as military targets and to minimize civilian casualties. Think about it. With America's overwhelming bombing capabilities, how long could any war last if we were not intentionally holding back to minimize collateral damage? There are few nations in the world who could stand against us if we played by the same rules as the creatures who attacked us on 9-11.
But we don't play by those rules, and it is past time that the America bashers acknowledged and admitted that fact.
On this day, nine years ago, 2,974 people were killed because some people still believe that violence in the name of religion is acceptable human behavior. Those people were monsters and those who support them are monsters. 2,974 people died - and countless more continue to die - because monsters have been allowed to roam this world unopposed. Other people make excuses and stroke their own egos, but the monsters are still roaming this world. Have you forgotten what those monsters are willing to do? We have not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)