Aurora Shootings

By now, I'm sure most have heard of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. While for those who were there for this tragedy, this is something that will live on in infamy, this sort of thing has all happened before. Some kind of mass murder, or an attempt at that... then all the political/activist figures make sure that the cameras catch them crying, then they use it to push their agendas.

Don't give me that look - chances are you know damned well what I am talking about. We see it every time there is any kind of shooting or domestic terrorism act that isn't linked to pissed off Muslims. It's reminiscent of the attitude in Victorian England during the Jack the Ripper case - "an Englishman couldn't have done it." We try to isolate ourselves as Americans and place blame on something else for an act committed by an American. Video games, music, television, movies, and of course, the gun industry. It can never just be the fault of the asshole who committed the act, or in some cases, the assholes who drove them to that point of desperation. 

Of course, the loudest lobby using this tragedy to their advantage is the anti-gun (read: "gun-control") lobby. Of course, guns weren't the only means he had to kill people. His home was rigged with all kinds of homemade explosives. He could have thrown a few of those in... or created a chemical weapon (and quite easily at that), and probably killed many more people.

On the other hand, logic dictates we also ask what would have happened if there were even one or two good people there who were armed. The guy would have gotten off fewer shots, don't ya think? The anti-gun people love to use statistics from other countries to justify out and out gun bans. They talk about how gun bans in places like England and Australia have reduced the number of gun crimes.

Gun bans reduce gun crimes. I'll give you a moment to think about that statement.

What they are less proud of is that the overall number of violent crimes in those nations has steadily climbed since these gun bans have been put in effect. Of course, you don't even have to look as far away as Europe or Australia to see how effective gun bans are at reducing violence... Mexico also has a ban on guns. And no, don't believe that line about them getting all or even most of their guns from America. The truth is that the majority of guns that can be tracked are tracked to American sources. Most of them can't be tracked - non-American sources often are more lax in their policies about guns being trackable. Realistically, less than approximately 20% of all the guns illegally in Mexico came from the US. The really scary guns in Mexico aren't even legal in the US. We have guns on the civilian market that look like assault rifles, but they lack that one all-important characteristic of actual assault rifles - select-fire capability. That is, the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully-automatic (ie, machine gun).

In honesty, you don't even have to look as far as Mexico to see how well gun bans work. DC and Chicago, until recently, had gun bans. DC was the murder capital of the US, with Chicago not far behind. Also keep in mind that you always hear about such massacres happening in supposed gun-free zones. Never at a shooting range or a gun store. Why do you think that is?

This nation's founders gave us the right to keep and bear arms not for hunting, but for protection from tyranny. Don't allow that right to be taken away as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy.

The one thing that does differentiate such tragedies from each other are the heroes. The ones who stopped to give basic aid to the injured, the ones who died to protect their girlfriends. Those are the ones who distinguish themselves and truly do deserve praise.

What does eet meeean, man!?

In case you didn't hear, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), including the individual mandate. Reactions are varied, including many saying they'll move to Canada to avoid the universal healthcare. Well, I'll hope that works out for them. Maybe they'll find Canada's universal healthcare more acceptable. Yes... I am being ironic.

For my part, I'm not fond of the individual mandate, but I can see why it may be needed. It's either that or more taxes... although it would take me about fifteen minutes to come up with a list of things we could axe or scale back on to make up for it, starting with a fairly thorough audit on all government spending.

However, on the idea of universal healthcare coverage in itself, I like it. Healthcare is expensive. Very fucking expensive. There are any number of reasons for it... many can be attributed to greed, some of it corporate, some of it belonging to those who are overly quick to run to a malpractice attorney. And it is easy to see why many people think of the insurance companies as being evil. Yes, they are a business, yes, that means they should be turning a profit. But at the same time, what if instead of spending all those extra profits on ad campaigns and lobbying, they spent it on actually taking care of people?

I'll let you in on a little info on myself. I've been without any kind of health insurance for well over two years now, starting when I was laid off from a particular job. The next job I had simply didn't provide health insurance. COBRA wasn't a viable option, as it wouldn't have left me enough money to even come close to paying rent each month. My present job isn't giving me enough hours to qualify for their health insurance. Thankfully, I'm in fairly good health overall, but that can always change... in a heartbeat, so to speak. However, if I were to try for private insurance, I would be denied. Why? Because of the pre-existing conditions. In my case, depression or possibly PTSD, either one's a kiss of death for insurance. Also, having had asthma as a child would disqualify me.

My girlfriend was also laid off from a job a few months ago. She's a little more concerned about the "what-if's" than I am. She tried for private insurance, and after a very invasive phone interview, she was rejected based on having PCOS - a fairly common condition, affecting 5-10% of all women, maybe more, and in her case, not severe. She receives no special treatments for it. But it was still enough to deny her coverage altogether.

With Obama himself, I remember him saying his inspiration for this (other than Romney's own bill in Massachusetts) was his own mother having cancer and being denied live-saving coverage as a result.

So yeah, for me it's personal. It's personal for Obama as well.

Predictions?

So I'm up late (like always... I tend to be a night person), although for whatever reason, I actually feel like I really am up late tonight.

I'm reading through the news, to include the highlighted quotes and deeds one sees from political activists on Facebook. What I'm seeing is making me think back to the crap this country went through during Woodrow Wilson's time in office. While he's considered now to be one of the "Great Presidents," the truth is, by most standards, he would have been one of the worst presidents in this nation's 300+ year history. He pretty much ruled with an iron fist, and accomplished all the things Bush the lesser was trying to accomplish a few years ago. The only reason he is considered a "Great President" is because he had the fortune to preside over the first world war, and our side theoretically won. Never mind that the way it was blundered through led directly to the Great Depression and to the second world war.

Watching events unfold remind me of a comic by Jhonen Vasquez called "Johnny the Homicidal Maniac." There is a part in which Johnny, perhaps ironically, says, "The basic behavior of the modern human is hardly different from that of its primitive ancestors, the only noticeable changes are trends. Whether in a quit or in a loincloth, people are ignorant little thorns, cutting into one another. The seem incapable of advancing beyond the violent tendencies which, at one time, were necessary for survival." For my part, it's not the incapability of advancing beyond the violent tendencies that bothers me so much as the asinine excuses people make for them. Some like to blame religion, but in truth, if not for religion, another excuse would be found.

What I'm seeing now is a lot of power-grabs. A lot of regression. I don't know how many have watched that old "Xena: Warrior Princess" show, or out of those who have, how many would admit to it (I have the first season on DVD - boo-yah!), but I remember an episode in which Ares had been dethroned. With that, warriors were on their best behaviors while non-warriors were picking fights wherever the hell they could. Ares said something about the absence of war causing a lack of discipline among people. I'm not sure how to word it correctly, but in its own way, it made sense. People are hungry for what they don't (or shouldn't) have. Now it seems like people are aching for another big war.

For those who are reading this, I'm curious about your predictions for what's likely to happen in the next ten years or so. There's no time limit on this, so just join in whenever.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012

Nanny-State Spreading...

So yeah, I've been on hiatus a bit lately. It tends to happen when one has a life (and job) outside the internet. That, and I've picked up on an addictive new hobby - home brewing. The sad thing is that I am not allowed to make any money off said hobby... but that's a different post altogether, and I'm already groaning at the subject material I'm wanting to cover in this post.

And I'm still waiting for my Black Dodge Challenger, dammit!

First, I'm going to pitch my bitch about the nanny-state laws. If you haven't heard about it already, mayor Bloomberg of New York wants to ban large drinks... that is, anything more than sixteen fluid ounces. That's smaller than a normal soda bottle, just a little larger than a soda can. To many, this may seem like more an annoyance (albeit a ridiculous one) rather than a cause for any real concern. But, I beg to differ. The thing one has to remember is precedents and the thing I mentioned in an earlier blog about a frog in a pan of water - turn up the heat slowly, and the frog just sits there unaware he is being slowly cooked alive. Similarly are our liberties being whittled away.

There are a lot of politicians out there who are making a lot of laws supposedly "for your own good." They attack the tobacco companies... sure, they had it coming and probably deserved it. They were lying about how harmful tobacco really is. Well, millions or billions of dollars in lawsuits later, along with surgeon general's warnings on the packaging, you would think it's more or less done with. Now people know that smoking is pretty damned bad for you. But, some choose to do so anyway. Now laws are made that target the smokers. Oh well, it's a bad habit anyway, and maybe we can get some more tax revenue from them... and more... and more... and more. Don't want to ban them, though... too much tax revenue. Which kinda shows, I think, that the politicians suffer from the same malady that the cigarette companies did - rather than stopping a bad practice, they'd rather keep the money coming it. Pretty much the same is done with alcohol, and the thing is that with tobacco and alcohol both, they are great targets of opportunity for weak politicians who need a dog to wag. Bust a few bars in sting operations for accidentally selling to underage people, everyone will compliment said politician for being tough on crime, and most who know better will be afraid to seem as though they might be defending the alcohol and tobacco industries in any way. Forget the fact that most people enjoy an occasional drink or even an occasional (if not more) smoke.

I'm not saying that there should be bans on alcohol or tobacco, just illustrating a point about political targets of opportunity. Politicians are using the alcohol and tobacco industries as a golden goose; forget the feigned enmity. Realistically, the same goes for porn.

Now, these set a precedent and illustrate a mentality that gives birth to a nanny state. I know that alcohol isn't good for my liver, yet I choose to enjoy it from time to time... whether it be a good beer, a nice wine, or a nice hard liquor. I think any fool now would also know that smoking isn't good for one's health also (and yes, I have had family members die from it). But, some still make the choice, as an adult, to smoke. Me, I think that's fine and peachy... whatever.

Of course, it didn't stop with alcohol and tobacco, did it? The trendy thing now is the "obesity epidemic." So, people who either have absolutely no sense of personal responsibility or just don't want to work for a living... actually, I suppose it's both. Anyway, they started suing fast food restaurants for the fact that they had become fat-asses. Makes me wonder what would happen if fast food restaurants were to start declining customers for being too fat. I hope that doesn't happen - I like my Taco Bell stuff, and I could stand to lose a few pounds. But, if I were in the mood to blame, I'd blame myself. Not that I lose any sleep over it, anyway.

Then there was the trans fats thing, in which New York, and I think San Francisco, decided to ban trans fats. Now, trans fats aren't great, no doubts there. And they were easy enough to replace with natural oils, like sunflower oil. The reason for so many people using them was simply that they gave a longer shelf life, stuff like that. However, I don't think that it was the business of the government at any level to ban them. Just put the news out there, and I think that the manufacturers would have transitioned away from them on their own.

Think I put too much trust into corporations? Well, consider the whole "pink slime" debacle (don't even get me started on that one). Consider that pretty much every major fast food restaurant has stopped using the stuff... on their own, without any laws being made. The lean beef trimmings (aka, "pink slime") was perfectly healthy and wholesome, but popular opinion was enough to sway them. Like it or not, capitalism is a form of democracy in itself. You vote with your money and withhold it from those you don't like. Couldn't be simpler.

Now we come back to the soft drinks. Hell, I like them. For lunch, I had a mustard Whopper from Burger King with a 32 oz coke. You should've seen my grin when I saw 64 oz drinks being offered at gas stations. Especially when one lives in a hot climate, they're nice to have. Yeah, they have lots of sugar and little in the way of health benefits, but so what? Last I checked, I was an adult, going on old fart. I make my own decisions, and have no desire to have a new mommy telling me what I can and can't have. One mom was more than enough, thanks much.

Of course, like other such nanny-state laws, this bad idea is spreading - Cambridge, MA considering banning large drinks and free refills.

Still not getting the big deal? Okay... first, consider the attacks on alcohol and tobacco. Next, consider the attacks on fast food. Now consider the attacks on drinks. The nanny-state bans/attacks are spreading. What's next on the chopping block?

Obama's Change of Heart

I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan, but I don't hate the guy, either. With this, I'm fairly honest and objective about my thoughts on the guy. Today, I woke up to this: Obama finally voices support for same-sex marriage.

I am something of a cynic, and being that it took him until campaign season to come out and actually support same-sex marriage as opposed to taking the politically-correct toned down liberal position of supporting civil unions but not marriage, I do believe that at least half of his announced change in stance has to do with politics.

However, he does give good arguments as to why he changed his stance. In the above-linked article, he says that he noticed his kids simply couldn't understand why same-sex couples couldn't have the same rights. Makes sense to me. Kids tend to see things much more simply, and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is usually the right one.

But ultimately, what does it matter? I'd like to believe that his reasoning is genuine, but as long as he backs it up in policy, what does it matter as to why he is doing it? American politics really are an extension of American capitalism - the one who is most willing to give the voters what they want is the one most likely to get elected. But, I will be watching Obama nonetheless to make sure his support is more than the all-too-typical pretty words to get votes.

Turning Up the Heat

You've likely heard that if you put a frog in hot water, it will struggle to escape, but if you put a frog in room temperature water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog won't notice and will be burned to death. The meaning of this is fairly simple - if someone directly attacks a fundamental right or liberty, we will notice it and see them for what they truly are. But, if they slowly chisel away at something... well, the heat is being turned up.

This is a very common tactic. It's been used for a very long time by the Brady Campaign, by MADD, and is now being used in a big and obvious way by the anti-birth control movement.

Let's start with MADD. While they started with admirable intentions and goals, they have more recently seemed to gravitate toward prohibition. After they accomplished their initial goals, they kept pushing further. They are pushing toward further lowering the legal BAC to the point where science gives no support to a claim of intoxication. They seem to want to punish people for drinking. Not for drunk driving, or even for being drunk. They haven't seemed to get much attention as of late, but I still notice that when a local politician is caught in a scandal, they start attacking the alcohol and tobacco people at various levels to distract. Perhaps there's some MADD influence there, perhaps not.

Next, let's look at the Brady Campaign. I will say right off that I am fond of guns, and am more than a little knowledgeable on them. The Brady Campaign's goals seem reasonable to those who aren't knowledgeable about guns, and those who don't understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment - that is to say, it was the Founders' way of insuring that the government never became tyrannical. Also, they didn't really intend for a standing army. They liked the Swiss idea of every citizen being a soldier of sorts if the need arised. So technically, we should all have access to military grade weapons.

The Brady Campaign, bullshit aside, has the ultimate goal of banning guns as a whole. They start by asking for background checks, which does seem reasonable. Then they continue by having waiting periods. Then they want "assault weapons" banned. The Brady Campaign's definition of assault weapons is its own; to one who is knowledgeable on guns, said definition is "anything that looks too scary." They don't like flash suppressors (which don't actually hide the flash), they don't like silencers (which work nothing like they do in movies - guns are still loud enough to damage the hearing, just not as loud), they don't like barrel shrouds (keeps one from burning their hand when they hold the barrel for stability), they don't like pistol grips on rifles/shotguns (ergonomics, really), collapsing stocks (adjustable for shooter comfort), folding stocks (stock folds out of the way for different shooting style). They also don't like high capacity magazines, which may be more understandable for some, but I believe that they make little difference. Then they want to ban semi automatics as a whole. Then they want to ban handguns as a whole because of supposed ease of concealment. Then likely, they'll say they want to ban rifles as a whole, because of accuracy at long distance.

The issue that's been getting the most attention however is the abortion/birth control debate. First they wanted to ban late-term abortion. That's something I can actually get behind, unless said abortion is medically necessary. Then they want to ban abortions altogether. For some, it ends there... but not all. Because of a lack of unity in this movement, they are quite sloppy.

More recently, we've seen birth control pills (that neat little pill that prevents abortions from becoming necessary in the first place) come under attack... not just the Plan B pills, either. Some say that we shouldn't have to pay for women to be able to have sex... but I have yet to see Viagra come under similar scrutiny. Viagra is currently much more expensive than birth control, and having checked a Blue Cross/Blue Shield website, it comes up as a Tier 2 - preferred brand. To give an idea, a popular brand name tri-cyclic birth control pill, for a four week supply, costs about $80 without insurance. Viagra, for six pills, costs about $130. Do the math. Keep in mind, these are both name brand drugs... the birth control drug price I speak of is not for a generic.

So it's not the idea of paying for someone else to have sex that these people are objecting to. It is the idea specifically of a woman having sex. It's not a new double standard, though. When a woman has sex with a lot of people, she's a slut. When a man has sex with a lot of people, he's just lucky... or a stud... or something cool. But no negative label.

Get informed on the issues, and don't be afraid to call bullshit. Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the position of the frog being slowly boiled to death. The heat is being turned up.