the title says it all, but before I sign off for the next 6 months or so, I would like to get a couple of deep thoughts out there on politics.
1. Libya- so all you anti-war protesters that took time out from smoking the reefer and playing tetris to get out and vote for Obama, what is going through your minds now?
He seemed to run on a pretty solid anti war platform, and what has he done so far to make good on his promises- pull the troops out of Iraq - didn't really do that, the 2012 timetable was actually Bush's agreement . He pulled the troops out of Afghanistan...no, wait, he actually sent more troops to Afghanistan. Well, he may not have done that stuff, but he did shut down Guantanamo Bay... he didn't? I'll be, he didn't. Well, surely he got rid of all that icky stuff that fascist Bush put into place like the PATRIOT Act and wiretaps and all that stuff- right? No, I guess he didn't do that either. I am just wondering what everyone who was so passionate about old Obama's antithesis of Bush's warmongering are thinking now?
2. Government spending- it is outrageous and out of control. It makes me literally sick when I see how little congress is concerned about how much they spend and what it is doing to this country. I think everything needs to be cut- EVERYTHING- that includes military spending. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now and lets tend to our house first, then we can go over to the neighbors and dig in their yard. I know some say the answer to the deficit is to raise taxes. Especially on businesses. Guess what, tax a business, you are really taxing the customer. If you don't believe me, just look at the gasoline industry. The federal, state and local fuel taxes are passed straight to you. You think the donut shop down the street is any different. The Feds start taxing them an extra .10 for every bagel they sell, I guarantee every bagel you buy will go up .10. And for all you moaning about the tax cut extensions, and how the republicans rammed it down our throats, take a look at the democrats who are staunchly unwilling to cut ANYTHING. I would be willing to pay higher taxes if congress would cut 42% out of the budget. Why 42%, because they borrow .42 on every dollar they spend.
3. Gay marriage- here's something for you guys, gov't should NOT be involved in marriage AT ALL. It is a religious institution and should therefore be left to the religions. I think all the government should be able to do is make two people legal partners that have rights to property. The partners do not need to be in love, it could be two old ladies, a guy and his grandma, a woman and her dog, business partners, I don't care, if you want to enter into a legal contract to be able to make decisions for people and inherit property when they die, then you should be able to no matter who you are or who they are. But leave marriage alone, especially the government, it is a religious matter and so you should separate yourself from it. The government is in no condition to start inflicting moral values on its citizens. Cause quite honestly, their moral values conflict with my moral values.
Anyhoo, there are a couple of my deep political thoughts to tie you over till summer.
Peace- I'm OUT!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Childhood movies RUINED!
Remember when you were a wee lad of perhaps 10, and you saw that really super awesome Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie? Do you remember wondering why Ninja Turtles was looked over at the Oscars that year? Maybe you don't, but I do. Yes, I thought the TMNT movie was awesome. But then again I was an adolescent so what did I know? I realize now that TMNT is NOT an awesome movie, and is in fact one of the worst movies I have ever seen. We all grow up and realize that our tastes as kids were probably pretty bad.
Occasionally, however, we remember a movie from our childhood, and looking back cannot find anything bad to say about it. It has withstood the test of time and is still awesome. Or so we think. I had one of these moments earlier this week when I saw the 1989 Batman was on Netflix. Remembering fondly how great this movie was, and not thinking of one reason why it would even be in the same league as TMNT, I pressed the play button. I then proceeded to ruin one of my favorite childhood memories.
Where to begin? The dialogue alone made me cringe throughout the whole movie, it sounded like it was written for a High School drama class. I know it is a cartoony movie, but it just felt like it was a movie waiting to be rifftraxed. (Note to self, check RiffTrax and see if Batman is available). Other than a very weak script and plot, perhaps the worst part of the movie is Jack Nicholson. He didn’t play the Joker, he played Jack Nicholson. Anybody ever notice he plays the same character in all his movies? In this one he just wore some makeup and had a crazy laugh. I suppose this could be chalked up to wanting to beat my head in with a hammer whenever Jack Nicholson is on the screen, but I think it is because Nicholson is not a very good actor. NO HE DIDN’T!!!!!!!! Yes I did, he is a terrible actor that just happens to be one of Hollywood’s flavors of the month, much like Snookie is on whatever tv show she is on.
As a side note, there are very few really good actors, most of them become popular because they are easy on the eyes and can speak in complete sentences. Most of the really popular actors only play caricatures of themselves. If you don’t believe me, just watch a few of your favorite actor’s movies back to back- I can almost guarantee that the performances and mannerisms are all the same. Just look at Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson, perhaps you could watch a Harrison Ford movie, and then pop in some Denzel Washington and Glenn Close movies. If any disagree, feel free to point out my error!
In the same vein, Michael Keaton was Michael Keaton, not Bruce Wayne. We got the character from Mr. Mom and Gung Ho! and threw in a little more Tim Burton and we have Bruce Wayne.
This movie was simply awful. The only thing I liked about it was Batman’s costume. I still think it looked waaaayyy cooler than the costume in the new movies.
And before you think that I am comparing Batman to Batman Begins or the Dark Knight, I’m not. They are incomparable. They are apples and oranges. I would not compare these movies just like I would not compare the cheesy 1966 Batman to any of these others. And before anyone mentions the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, I refuse to acknowledge that they even exist, I believe that the rumor that these movies exist is a cruel joke perpetuated on the human race.
Anyhoo, enough about that, it is not a good movie. Maybe that is too harsh, it is a good movie for 10 year olds, and has found a great place next to TMNT in my mind.
Occasionally, however, we remember a movie from our childhood, and looking back cannot find anything bad to say about it. It has withstood the test of time and is still awesome. Or so we think. I had one of these moments earlier this week when I saw the 1989 Batman was on Netflix. Remembering fondly how great this movie was, and not thinking of one reason why it would even be in the same league as TMNT, I pressed the play button. I then proceeded to ruin one of my favorite childhood memories.
Where to begin? The dialogue alone made me cringe throughout the whole movie, it sounded like it was written for a High School drama class. I know it is a cartoony movie, but it just felt like it was a movie waiting to be rifftraxed. (Note to self, check RiffTrax and see if Batman is available). Other than a very weak script and plot, perhaps the worst part of the movie is Jack Nicholson. He didn’t play the Joker, he played Jack Nicholson. Anybody ever notice he plays the same character in all his movies? In this one he just wore some makeup and had a crazy laugh. I suppose this could be chalked up to wanting to beat my head in with a hammer whenever Jack Nicholson is on the screen, but I think it is because Nicholson is not a very good actor. NO HE DIDN’T!!!!!!!! Yes I did, he is a terrible actor that just happens to be one of Hollywood’s flavors of the month, much like Snookie is on whatever tv show she is on.
As a side note, there are very few really good actors, most of them become popular because they are easy on the eyes and can speak in complete sentences. Most of the really popular actors only play caricatures of themselves. If you don’t believe me, just watch a few of your favorite actor’s movies back to back- I can almost guarantee that the performances and mannerisms are all the same. Just look at Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson, perhaps you could watch a Harrison Ford movie, and then pop in some Denzel Washington and Glenn Close movies. If any disagree, feel free to point out my error!
In the same vein, Michael Keaton was Michael Keaton, not Bruce Wayne. We got the character from Mr. Mom and Gung Ho! and threw in a little more Tim Burton and we have Bruce Wayne.
This movie was simply awful. The only thing I liked about it was Batman’s costume. I still think it looked waaaayyy cooler than the costume in the new movies.
And before you think that I am comparing Batman to Batman Begins or the Dark Knight, I’m not. They are incomparable. They are apples and oranges. I would not compare these movies just like I would not compare the cheesy 1966 Batman to any of these others. And before anyone mentions the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, I refuse to acknowledge that they even exist, I believe that the rumor that these movies exist is a cruel joke perpetuated on the human race.
Anyhoo, enough about that, it is not a good movie. Maybe that is too harsh, it is a good movie for 10 year olds, and has found a great place next to TMNT in my mind.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
politicians...
Do you know what irritates me most about politicians? I mean ALL politicians- republicans, democrats, blah, blah, blah...
Their weird justifications whenever they lose an election. What might that be, you ask?
We lost because our base wasn't motivated to vote. We lost because people didn't get out and vote. We lost because we didn't explain ourselves well enough, and people weren't motivated to vote.
Maybe you lost because people disagree with you and your policies.
And before anyone fires back at me with Obama and the democrats, let me make myself clear- ALL POLITICIANS DO THIS.
In 2006, the republicans lost- and they did the same thing. It wasn't that their base did not turn out to vote, they were tired of how they were running things.
To the democrats that lost this year- it was not because your people did not turn out to vote, it was not because you didn't get your message out, and it was certainly not because us dumb citizens just don't understand what you are trying to do.
You lost because people do not like the way you are running things. Period.
End of rant.
Peace- I'm out.
Their weird justifications whenever they lose an election. What might that be, you ask?
We lost because our base wasn't motivated to vote. We lost because people didn't get out and vote. We lost because we didn't explain ourselves well enough, and people weren't motivated to vote.
Maybe you lost because people disagree with you and your policies.
And before anyone fires back at me with Obama and the democrats, let me make myself clear- ALL POLITICIANS DO THIS.
In 2006, the republicans lost- and they did the same thing. It wasn't that their base did not turn out to vote, they were tired of how they were running things.
To the democrats that lost this year- it was not because your people did not turn out to vote, it was not because you didn't get your message out, and it was certainly not because us dumb citizens just don't understand what you are trying to do.
You lost because people do not like the way you are running things. Period.
End of rant.
Peace- I'm out.
Friday, October 15, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
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?
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?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
