Congress is Useless

So, sequestration starts today.  Maybe this will be the necessary step that leads us to vote every last incumbent out of office next election.   Lets create a completely artificial problem to force us to deal with a larger actual problem and then be so dysfunctional to not even deal with the artificial problem we created which, oh, by the way, is barely a drop in the bucket anyway.

I'm sick of the Senate Democrats not putting forth a budget.  I don't care if it gets voted down, filibustered, whatever, DO YOUR JOB AND COME UP WITH A BUDGET!

I'm even more sick of the Republicans living in bizarro world where the federal government isn't a massive economic engine.

Bear with me here because whether or not you are a Keynesian, there is some truth to what I'm going to say.

Like it or not, the Federal government, directly, through Federal employees, or indirectly through secondary industries like defense, employees or helps pay for hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees.

Randomly cutting 10% off the budget, does not fix any problems, it just puts less money into the economy.  All those people getting furloughed every so often?  That's less money they can spend.   All those companies relying on gov't contracts?  That's less money coming in, less hiring, and less money getting spent on good to make products and goods purchased by employees.

Am I predicting a return to recession because of this?  Not necessarily, though I could see it happening if it goes on long enough.   I am saying that our economy, for the average person, is not overly strong.  Our wages aren't going up and prices are.

This stupid "sequestration" isn't solving the debt crisis but it certainly could set back the slow recovery we've been having.

Brilliant Congress.   Brilliant.

NRA out of touch

Yeah, this is also going to be tangentially related to gun-control because yesterday the NRA finally showed its face and held a press conference.  It probably would be better for them if they hadn't, but hey, why keep silent when you can say something stupid.

The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring.  Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns.  Amazing isn't it?

Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting.  A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school.  His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well.  We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim?  Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?

A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine?  Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28.  Better?  I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening.  It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead.  Which is what we want!

So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue.  Who's going to pay for this?  Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me.  But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is.  Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards?  Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.

And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F.  Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use?  It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.

The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner.  They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers.  The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.

The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away.  But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora.  In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns.  But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.

So please, gun owners.  If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that.  The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners.  They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers.  There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.

We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated.  He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.

Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?

Rambling on Gun Control.

So, I've held off on this for a few days, but the statistics being bandied about are just making me crazy.  For the record, I do not support banning guns.  However, I do support tighter gun control, making it harder to get guns, and limiting or banning certain types of guns and accessories.

But on to some thoughts on statistics.  The hilarious thing about using statistics to say how we don't need tighter gun controls is how it also utterly disproves the point of needing a gun for protection.

Yes, statistically the number of murders committed by legally owned guns is fairly low (though they make up a surprising number of the guns used in mass murders).  And the number of murders and violent crimes in general in the US are still fairly low compared to most points in the last 50 years.

But, if those things are the case, why do so many people need guns for protection?  Statistically your chances of being in a situation where you NEED a gun to defend yourself is almost 0, maybe, MAYBE 1 time in your life.  (And the chances of being in a situation where you need a high capacity magazine or an AR-15 to defend yourself IS zero  Unless you want bullets punching through a home invader, through the walls of your house and ending up god knows where.)  Fear is good for gun sales though, which merely creates the potential for MORE gun violence as there are more guns out there to have accidents with, to get stolen, etc.

The interesting thing about guns for protection as well (outside of that being the EXACT SAME REASON gang members and drug dealers need guns, funny how that mentality is shared isn't it) is that with the chance of needing it being SO LOW that its mostly going to escalate non-violent or non-lethal situations into violent or lethal ones.

Florida currently has at least 2 cases, the Travon Martin case, and a second case where, because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, legal concealed carry folks killed unarmed citizens after confrontations escalated.  Would those confrontations have happened if the antagonist hadn't been armed?  I don't know.  Maybe, but for SOME (not all) knowing they are carrying gives a false sense of security or invincibility.

I am not saying all gun owners are trigger happy fools, most aren't, very few are.  BUT, again, guns are a force multiplier beyond knives, baseball bats, and pretty much anything outside of explosives.  Why do we need anyone besides highly trained professionals carrying them on a daily basis? (I believe a citizen can be a highly trained professional, they just need to prove they are before they are allowed to concealed carry and they must go through tests yearly to keep their card.)

Since overall violence is down, why do those guns (semi-auto military styled rifles and high capacity magazines) need to be out there?

Sure, they are fun.  I'm even for people being able to own them, they just must be kept at gun clubs where you go to shoot them.  You don't get to have them at home.  You can still have hunting rifles, even semi-auto hunting rifles, but nothing with a clip holding more than 10 rounds.  (I'd say 6, but would settle for 10.)

One more piece of false logic the pro-"all guns all the time" folks trot out there.  "Oh, there's too many of these guns out there, we can't put the genie back in the bottle."  This type of broken thinking is how we are in the debt mess we're in as a nation.  Sure, there is no instant fix, but that means we shouldn't do anything?  Maybe we should apply this logic to cancer!  "We can't cure ALL cancer and it costs a lot of money to fight cancer, so we should just stop trying."  Hmmm, doesn't make much sense there does it?

I think its pretty simple.  Ban sales of high capacity magazines NOW.  No more sales of them, at ALL.  (To you screaming BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMPANIES THAT SELL THEM! JOBS!! I would say 1) stop being merchants of death 2) after legislation is passed, the magazines can be sold to the gun clubs, who can then sell them to members for use ONLY at the gun club.)

Then, work out the details of how to get them out of people's homes.  Don't make it a ridiculous offense. If someone has a FOID card, but still has now illegal weapons in their home, they can 1) register the weapons with whatever local agency will be registering weapons now (I have to register a car, why do I not have to register every single gun I own by serial number?) and then take the weapon to the local gun club or 2) turn the weapon over to the local agency and get paid fair market value for it (paid for by registration fees).  There would be a five year window where you could do these things for free (only new guns would require registration fees).  After that five year period, if you could show your FOID card, you'd pay a small fine and then be allowed to register your weapons. and pay a fee.

See, people can own guns, it will just be more costly.   You can still shoot your guns, just certain types have to be shot at certain places.  This is NOT rocket science.

Will this stop gun violence or the next massacre?  Of course not, evil people or ill people can still find a way, but it will make it harder to do so and that DOES help prevent crime.  (There are actual statistics to back that up too.)

If you think this is the gov't taking away your rights, I don't care.  You can still own guns, you just have to do it in a way that makes sense.  The way we currently do it MAKES NO SENSE and needs to change.

4 more years....

Well, President Obama won.   This doesn't come as a surprise to me, I was going to be shocked if Romney won. (More on that in a few paragraphs)

Mr. President, while I'm not thrilled with your first term, you have been given a second chance.  A chance to finish what you started, to start the things you talked about, and generally work as best you can to help right the course for America.

You have a big job in front of you and I don't know if you can actually do it.  You're too beholden to the monied interests.  I'll be interested who you replace on your cabinet.  You don't seem to be dynamic enough in your leadership.

BUT, you don't have to worry about reelection now.  You have a slightly more accommodating Congress, one who might actually be willing to work with you now.  But you still must put forward some actual ideas, and ways to implement them.

I wish you luck in your second term, hopefully it will be the start of a new era for America.

Now, to those of you surprised by Romney's loss...why?  What made you believe he was going to win?

Was it his staunch beliefs?  Wait, I have no idea what he believes in because it changes, every single election.

Was it his proven governing power?  Oh, wait, he's had to disavow his biggest accomplishment as governor because it smacked of socialism to the far right.

Was it his likeable personality?  Not really, he's random rich old white dude.  You could insert about 50 other guys in his stead and they'd all be the same.

Maybe his proven record as a leader of a company?  Well, sort of.  His company made lots of money, but lots of that was made by buying and gutting companies and outsourcing jobs.  I understand that happens, and sometimes it should, but its not gonna win you votes.

Was it his appeal to others besides whites?  I can't even come up with something snarky to respond here.  Its just hilarious.

America, while still run by whites (look at congress), is slowly starting to show in their vote that "Hey, there are people of other cultures here, other backgrounds besides WASP or white catholic."  The Republican leadership, the Republican "base," and Republican news outlets like Fox News are scared to admit that and delude themselves into thinking that the changing face of America isn't happening or that it can be reversed.  No, it can't!

I've already read 3 or 4 blogs and articles just today from tea party people saying the reason Romney lost was that he wasn't far right enough!!!  Wait a second, you honestly believe that a Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee, would have fared better?  If so, good luck to you in 4 years because you're going to be sorely disappointed yet again.

Hopefully, the Republicans will embrace the changing face of America and revise their platform to be more inclusive and in doing so actually put candidates up for consideration that bring something to the table besides isolationism, xenophobia, and broken jokes of economic plans.

Romney, you are pathetic

Disclaimer:  99.9% of political ads are lies, distortions and half truths.  From both parties, from all groups.

With that said, the Romney campaign has taken things to a level almost of the Swift Boat myths of the Bush days.

The claim made in Romney's ads in Ohio, a state Romney is losing in and that has been pummeled by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past 30 years, are 100% lies.  Lies, not distortions, but flat out lies, refuted by the very companies Romney was lying about.

Jeep is NOT moving jobs from Ohio to China, nor is GM cutting American jobs to move to China.  Both companies are expanding in China, operations COMPLETELY SEPARATE from their North American operations.

Both Fiat, speaking about their Jeep division, and GM have refuted the Romney camp's ads, and beyond ads, things Romney has hinted at in speeches.

Romney, someone who made millions gutting companies and laying off workers, is amazing in his gall.  The man will literally say anything to get elected.  When you are the most accomplished political waffler, that is saying something and what it's saying isn't good.

Now, I'm not saying the Obama campaign is 100% truthful.   I'm sick of political ads and political lies.  But the extreme's Romney is going to is pathetic.  The man is not fit to run the country because as far as I can tell he has no actual beliefs of his own, merely what it takes to get elected to the next office.  

Seriously, look at how his views have changed from his days as governor of Massachusetts.  Its not slight wavering to gain politcal wiggle room, its wholesale changes in a desperate attempt to get elected and its pathetic.

I could handle the old Romney, Governor Romney as President.  This man he's decided to become, its sickening.  Its honestly sad when Obama, someone who accomplished little of his established goals and showed little of his stated beliefs in his first term, comes across as the more honest, principled option.

Ugh.

Layoffs

So now the Koch brothers are warning of layoffs if Obama is reelected joining other rich plutocrats threatening the peasants if the peasants don't act according to their wishes.

Really.  This is where we are in America?  THESE are our leaders of industry?   Men who (like the Koch brothers) have run successful businesses, made themselves PILES of money, and now, somehow, if Obama is reelected they are going to have to lay off everyday workers to stay profitable?

Hmm.  I think this is a load of crap.

Why?

Oh, because of the tens, if not hundreds of millions these men have spent on political campaigns.  Instead of reinvesting it in their businesses, or keeping it for tougher times, no, its their money, they can do what they want, so they try and get friendly politicians elected.

But then, if things don't go their way, they cry, take their ball and go home, and make their workers suffer so that they can keep their huge incomes and replenish the spending cash for the next election cycle in four years.

Look, I understand that its hard to run a business in the US.  We need to overhaul our corporate tax system and we need to streamline and improve our regulating processes.  I am NOT anti-businessman especially since, as much as I despise their politics the Koch brothers at least own businesses that PRODUCE things unlike the Wall Street boys that just shift data in computers.

That said, the whole "I made mine if you don't like it go make your own" mentality of too many of the wealthy in this country is nauseating.  Its selfish and its destructive.  And if they somehow believe that threatening their employees is going to solve America's problems, well, good luck to them on that.

The blind, selfish, willful ignorance and hubris of so many wealthy people sickens me.  Thanks Supreme Court for allowing these guys to try and buy election after election.  That's certainly what the Founding Fathers you hold so dear envisioned that First Amendment being used for.  Nice work.

This probably makes even less sense than most of my posts but I am sick and tired of the rich feeling every bit as entitled (to a far larger piece of the pie, in fact almost ALL the pie) as the poor they like to blame for all our problems.

Bullying

So, a chubby local newsperson gets an email from a buff lawyer ripping her about her weight.

 Instead of doing what most people would do, ignoring the moron, she, in best local newsperson manner, decides to take it on air.

 In a highly misguided statement she claims she is standing up for all the bullied people in the world. The kids who have to deal with being called fat, or short, or gay or whatever.

 Ok, fine, except, no, you're not.

 You were not bullied Ms. Livingston and you apparently don't have any idea what the word means.

To be bullied would mean you would be singled out, repeatedly, by one person, or a group, and humiliated, threatened, and/or mocked by those you are often in contact with.

 Instead, you got one email from an idiot, some guy you don't know and never have to interact with.

 Really, you're going to compare THAT to the kid getting mocked on the bus every day. To having his books pushed on the floor. To being picked on constantly by people he has to face, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 You don't even see how you trivialized bullying do you?

 You honestly believe you were bullied and you were standing up for what's right.

 You were wrong.

 If it was a co-worker who everyday was making comments, then yes, that could easily be bullying.

 But it wasn't, it was a random email from some schmuck.

 So please, delete the email, suck it up and just go about your life.

 Don't demean those who deal with bullying on a daily basis by comparing what they go through to an email from an idiot.

 This is one more reason why local news should be banned. If there was no local news, there would be no local newspeople. Do you know what a boon this would be for not having crap TV?