My silence is broken...

After a hiatus of about 4 months, I have decided to break my silence. What will I talk about? I bet you cannot wait to get a glimpse into my soul, the deepest thoughts a redneck like me can conjure up...

Probably not. Because I am in school, and we are trying to expand the living area in the house that my posts will continue to be sparse. It is because I am on vicodin right now for an abscessed tooth that I am up at 1:30am and am writing this now.

Just some random thoughts-

Some may think because I am a black hearted conservative that I don't believe in social safety nets. Quite the contrary, actually. I am not opposed to welfare, medicare or medicaid, food stamp, WIC, etc, etc. I am opposed to the fraud and waste that poor MANAGEMENT of the programs produce. I am opposed to politicians using social programs as a bribery tool for votes. I think unemployment benefits are good. I like the idea that if I lose my job, I don't have to starve, or my family does not need to starve.

I recently had to read a book for one of my classes called American Dream by Jason DeParle. It is a book about welfare reform in the 90's. Although I didn't agree with many of the conclusions of the author, it was a very informative book I thought on the limits of government. After the welfare reform under the Clinton administration cleaned up most of the fraud and abuse, it shed new light on the legitimate cases of welfare. For some, being on welfare was needed because they were in-between jobs, or were single parents that felt they needed to raise their kids- in my mind perfectly legitimate and good reasons to be a welfare recipient. Others couldn't keep jobs because of mental illness and drug addictions.
What struck me most in the book (my class is on public policy) was how the policies implemented never quite got to the root of the problem. The policies in the welfare reform focused on job skill training, interview training, etc. All great things, except the majority of people still on welfare were there because of addictions and mental illness. How is interview training going to help someone on crack become a contributing member of society?
The issues that seem to cause people to be on welfare are not things the government can help with- they are issues of morality and values. This may surprise some of you, but I don't think the government is in a position to dictate and educate us about morals and values. Morals and values is what is going to help prevent teenage pregnancy. Morals and values is what is going to help prevent drug abuse. Not the government. I also think that Sex ed should not be taught in schools, even abstinence programs- that is something parents should be teaching.
We do need Separation of Church and State, but we don't need insulation from churches. That is the problem now days, religion has become something to be mocked. Moral relativism is what rules the day. Until we can change that, no amount of money spent in government programs is going to stop teen pregnancy, drug abuse, or any other moral or values based activity.
This is why I see the government as a lumbering impedance to society. They often have to stick their hands in places where they do not belong. They try too hard to be a paternalistic entity. In my opinion, it does more harm than good.
And just to show that this in not a right left issue, I will criticize the right for a moment. In the 90's, the prevailing thought was that the cycle of welfare could be broken by kids seeing their parents working, or that by working, adults would gain a sort of spiritual satisfaction out of it that they would magically become better parents. Now, conservatives also postulated that if a work requirement was introduced into welfare, the rolls would be reduced. They also postulated that if block grants were given to the states, and the states were allowed to administer it as they saw fit, the rolls would be reduced. Liberals said that both these ideas would increase the homeless population and kids would be sleeping in alleys.
The liberals were wrong, welfare reform did not produce more homeless families, it did reduce the number of people on the rolls, cause most figured they could just go out and get a job and make more money, since they had to work anyway. Also, states administered the programs more effectively and helped more people. So the conservatives were correct on that point, but they were wrong that it could break the cycle of welfare. They were wrong because they attempted to fix a moral and values problem with government policy- it doesn't work.

Anyway- after that long post that most people probably won't care to read, and may have fell asleep halfway through- I thank you for reading it and getting to this part, sadly there is no reward, only the knowledge that you know some of Danny's innermost special thoughts...

Peace- I'm Out.

Clarification on guns

I am ok with certain regulations on guns, just as I am on cars. Allow me to elaborate:
I am ok with age restrictions on owning firearms.
I am ok with background checks.
I am ok with outlawing straw purchases (although it really is just the honor system at play here.)
I am ok with one private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen.
I am ok with the tax stamp for owning an automatic weapon.
I am ok with having to take a training class before you carry a firearm.
Beyond that, there are not many more things I am ok with. A gun is dangerous. So is a car, an arc welder, a table saw, a nail gun. Cars kill far more people than guns do, so why have we not banned cars yet?
Just some facts that I found- in 2004 the number car crash fatalities was 42,636. The firearm fatalities (which includes all types of deaths from firearms- accidental, murder, etc.)was 29,569. http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/01/Autos/nhtsa_death_stats/index.htm http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics

Also on more interesting fact- in 2008, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the firearm of choice for murderers was a handgun, not a rifle by a 2 to 1 margin (an AK-47 is classified as a rifle). Leads me to believe the only gangstas who use AK's are in the movies. Besides, how many times do you here about 10 or more people getting shot at the same time? Has it happened, maybe, I can't find anywhere in the US where a gang member rolled up with an AK and took out a rival gang at the same time. If it does happen, it is rare. and AK's are legal to buy and own. Where is the mass killing from all the non-banned assault rifles?

more guns part 2...

To continue the theme of yesterday: arguments against guns and my responses to them.

 

I don’t have a problem with people owning guns, I just don’t see why you need to have a _____________.(fill in the blank with a scary gun, such as an M-16 or AK-47)  I’ll let everyone in on a little secret- how the gun looks or how many rounds it holds does not make it more dangerous then a pink, bolt action rifle.  ANY gun in the hands of an irresponsible person is capable of severely injuring or killing a person.  It’s like taking a stick of dynamite and painting one yellow with flowers on it, and another one black with flames and demons on it.  Is the yellow one with flowers any less dangerous than the other?  I think this argument comes from a lack of knowledge of guns.  People will say that these types of guns, especially the AK-47 have a more dangerous caliber of bullet than other guns.  This is simply not true.  The AK-47 fires the 7.62mm round, which is a relatively small round.  Most hunting rifles fire a far larger and more powerful round, such as the .30-.06, a far larger and much more common hunting round.  The M-16/AR-15 shoots an even smaller round, the 5.56/.223 (they are not the same, they are slightly different rounds).  In fact, this round is sometimes referred to as a “varmint” round, cause it’s mostly good at killin’ ground critters, like rats, prairie dogs and rabbits.  Others will say that what makes them dangerous is the magazine capacity- sometimes 30 rounds.  I honestly don’t understand too much of why this is a big deal, something about being able to fire more without reloading… I’ve got news for you- if it takes you more than 2 seconds to throw another magazine in the firearm you probably wear a helmet and ride the short bus to school.  So the amount of ammo it holds doesn’t really ring true to me as sufficient basis for a ban. 

 

Well, I had more written, but to be honest this subject is boring me for now…since this is my domain  I will cease writing about guns.  I have not really read any comments any have made, so perhaps I will.

 

On the other hand, Sharel and I might be getting a dog here in the next couple of weeks.  It is a big dog, one that will eat small children and skinny people.  (I am just kidding, the dog has no taste for adult, skinny humans).  Any way, she is a chocolate color and about 7 or 8 months old.  We are not real sure that we are going to get her, but we are going to check her out.  We are excited.  She was picked up by animal control from the owners who were moving and didn’t want to take her with.  The good news is she is young enough to still socialize and have it benefit her.  Like I said, it is up in the air right now, but we would sure like to get her if she fits with us.

Peace- I’m out.

More on guns...

Just in case any of you don’t know my stance on guns- I like them.  I like them a lot.  Sure, some may say it is an unhealthy obsession.  Mom thinks it is because I watched violent tv shows like CHiPs and Hunter as a very small child.  Perhaps it was the Christmas that I got a Red Ryder bb gun from Santa that set me on this path of firearm love.  Whatever the case may be, I do enjoy shooting guns.  Please don’t mistake this for some sort of apocalyptic  end of the world stance on life, where I stockpile guns and wait for zombies to rise so I can shoot them and live in a world with no electricity and no government and no…well, you get the picture.  I would call myself a gun enthusiast (not really, ‘cause then I would have to kick my own rear end) in the same vein as people are enthusiasts about cars, or golf, or musical instruments, or model planes, or chess.  Get the picture?  It’s a hobby that I find no weirder or strange than the aforementioned hobbies.

That being said, as far as gun control, I have heard all the arguments for it, and it has yet to change my mind.   There are some common arguments that I hear, and just so we do not repeat ourselves here, here are my responses to them.

Guns kill people.  So do knives, cars, baseball bats, tire irons, fists, feet, piano wire, rope, electricity, water, heat, cold, bungee jumping, mountain biking, horses, tigers, bears, dogs, viruses, hammers, nail guns, lakes, boats, airplanes, bricks, rocks, cliffs, trees, skydiving, scuba diving, sharks, repelling,, etc.  If you don’t get my point- lots of things kill people, but we do not outright ban them.

Guns kill people part 2.  No, they don’t.  I can set a loaded gun on a table and at no point will it kill someone.  It can’t.  it is not alive, it is not capable of manipulating itself, it is not capable of aiming itself.  It cannot kill.  A person could pick up the gun and use it to kill another human.  A person can pick up a baseball bat and use it to kill someone.  A person can pick up a knife and use it to kill another person, but there is no crusade bellowing “Knives kill people!”  In my scant 30 years of life, not once has a knife from the kitchen ever killed me or someone I know on its own.  It is the same with guns.  It is a tool, one that people use for a variety of purposes from sport to hunting to fighting wars.  Someone has to use it to kill.  Blame the person, not the tool.

Crazy, evil people use a myriad of things to kill or hurt other people.  I don’t think it is going to make much difference what they use, the point is if they want to kill or hurt someone, they will find a way.  Banning guns ain’t gonna stop them.

But, you say, guns are more dangerous and deadly than a lot of things you just listed.  I would agree.  But any of the things listed above, especially automobiles can be deadly in the hands of an irresponsible person.  We do not ban cars, and I know more people personally that have been killed or severely injured in a car accident than killed or injured with a gun. 

That is probably a long enough post for now.  I will post more arguments I have heard and my responses to them.

Peace- I’m out.

 

 

My silence is broken...

SCOTUS rejected Chicago’s handgun ban.  I know most of you will say “boy, Danny is probably ecstatic right now, that loveable, cuddly lump of right wing angst!”  But, you would be wrong.  Well, not too wrong, just a little.  Lemme ‘splain, before some think I have lost my mind.

First, I am very happy with this ruling.  I think bans like this are bred out of an illogical fear knee-jerk reactionism.  These types of bans do not address the root cause of crime, but rather symptoms of crime.  It is like going to a doctor with an infection, and instead of treating the infection, he prescribes Tylenol just to keep the fever, the symptom of an infection, away.  I could go on and on about what the underlying causes of crime are, but that is another post.  Anyway, I think this ruling does give back some of the freedom that we should have.

I am hesitant with this ruling for another reason.  My states rights/libertarianism is showing on this one.  I think states should largely be left alone from Federal intrusion.  If a state wants to ban guns, give out socialized medicine, have exorbitant taxes, dictate what kind of car you can drive, when you can run your A/C, then you can move to California and see how well you do.  Hey, maybe spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax will create a successful economy and a wonderful place to live, just like California.

If you want to live in a state with the opposite philosophy, then you can move to a place like Texas.  If you want to live someplace in between, then you can choose from  48 other states. 

My point is, I think if you let states run themselves with whatever philosophy they choose, it will be apparent what works and what doesn’t.  I know some will say that it can’t happen that way since states and their economies are tied in to each other, and it wouldn’t be practical, but hey, I can dream can’t I?

I know some, like Spencer will argue that states cannot trample on fundamental rights laid out in the constitution.  I would agree as well.  That is why I am very, very happy about this ruling, and only slightly, very slightly unhappy about it.

Now, everyone feel free to comment and express their own views, but let me say I may or may not respond, as my time is very limited on looking and updating the blog, and also because with gun control I am very stubborn and already have made my mind up.  There is little that anyone could say that will make me think any differently about my views.  So nah nanana booboo.

Peace- I’m out.

response to Spencer

I do not disagree with you. You are addressing the clean up phase of the spill. In that area Obama is failing horribly. I am referring to the actual leak and the many people who wonder why Obama hasn't stopped the leak yet. I am referring to the people who are screaming for Obama to kick BP out and take over the efforts to stop the leak.

I think what we have here is a large segment of the population that when disaster strikes, they are waiting for Uncle Sam to kiss the booboos and make everything better immediately. they did it with Bush and Katrina. They wondered why Bush didn't evacuate New Orleans. Now they are wondering why Obama didn't plug the leak. I am quite confident that the government would take 8 times as long to fix the leak than BP will take.
This is the point of my post. the cleanup efforts are a whole other discussion.
So there.

On a somewhat related note, the EPA brought together the best minds they could find to figure out how to stop the leak. One of the "experts" they called in was one James Cameron, the mega intellectual director extraordinaire. Given who this administration is running to for ideas, I think it is a good thing for humanity that they are letting BP fix the leak.

a brief foray back into the seedy world of politics...

Just a potpourri of thoughts…

 

I just have to ask all those that loathe George Bush- 20 years from now am I still gonna have to listen to everything being blamed on Bush?  How long is the Obama Administration going to keep blaming Bush for things?  At some point enough policies will be in place that the current administration will have to own it.  For now it sounds like a lot of people have loser’s elbow.  (to demonstrate what ‘loser’s elbow’ is, first point your index finger out, like you are pointing at somebody.  Take your other hand and cup it under your elbow.  Now jab your pointing finger hand towards something [may I suggest a picture of George W.] whilst repeating “it’s your fault, it’s your fault!”.  Do that enough and eventually you will have to see a doctor as you will have a condition similar to tennis elbow, but its called ‘Loser’s Elbow’)

 

The Oil Spill…

First I would just like to say that this is not Obama’s fault.  I would also mention that BP is not some evil, sinister corporation that is not fixing this because it hates the inbred shrimp fisherman of the Gulf and  the environment.

I think a little logical thought would help- first, this spill is going to cost BP an enormous amount of money and reputation.  This could likely put BP into a serious financial problem.  What evil, profit worshipping corporation is going to purposely endanger their profits like this?  In that same vein of thinking, with BP knowing what a huge disaster this is for their bottom-line, does it not stand to reason then that they are doing everything they can to stop the leak?  It was an accident.  Lets get the leak stopped first, then we can evaluate what went wrong and see if there is any culpability on anyone’s part.

 Further I would like to go on record as defending Obama a little (shocking, I know).  Really what can he do?  Don a scuba tank and a teleprompter and go down there and inspire the pipe to stop gushing oil?  Perhaps we could hook his enormous brain up to a computer and use it to come up with a solution to the leak?  Better yet, why don’t we just follow the solution he has already given to “Plug the damn hole!”.  He can do no more to stop the leak than Bush could to stop a hurricane.

I do however think the people who blamed Bush for Katrina should go ahead and blame Obama for this spill.  You guys wouldn’t want to be hypocrites, would you?  You see, I didn’t think there was a whole lot Bush could have done to get people out of New Orleans (state and local sovereignty issues), and I don’t think there is a whole lot Obama can do in the current situation.  So I am consistent.

Now just so you don’t think that I have suffered brain trauma, here are my criticisms of the administrations handling of this disaster- as I said before, lets concentrate on fixing the problem, rather than wasting time and effort trying to find someone to blame for this.  After all, did Obama not run on the promise to change the status quo of politics?  What is the status quo of politics when it comes to disasters?  Assigning blame early and often.  Instead of sending Holder down there to investigate criminal activities, focus on the problem.  As Sharel pointed out, it is a little like an ER doc trying to figure out who hit who before working on the car accident victim.  Beyond that, I think it helps little to start threatening everyone associated with this effort with criminal charges.  It is counterproductive. 

Peace- I’m Out.