Whenever you are reading this, I actually wrote it awhile ago. I didn't want to post it immediately in the aftermath of the latest college slaughters as I thought it would be disrespectful of the victims (although less so than the vile statements of Ben Carson and others who did not think the deaths worthy of discussion in any real sense) and because I don't believe we should ever have a knee jerk reaction to big events, in our life or in the world.
Let's start with the Constitution. It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sorry, the Constitution does not give you the right to own a gun to hunt, protect yourself or involve yourself in attacking the government or it's institutions. It says that it is necessary because we needed a "well regulated militia". Now, if you are against the supreme court interpreting the constitution then you would have to be for limiting gun ownership to those who join the National Guard or some other state sponsored militia. By the way, there are limitations on what weapons the National Guard can own. No state has it's own nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Let's ignore the constitution for a second and ask a rational rather than a legal question. What weapons should individuals be allowed to own and for what purposes? Should you be allowed to own a machine gun so that you can rob banks or kill groups of people that you don't like? Are those valid reasons for owning weapons? Should individuals be allowed to own atomic weapons and use them against foreign countries that they don't like? If you are for unlimited weapon ownership than how can you justify stopping foreign countries like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons? Are you consistent in your beliefs?
There are those on the fringe right that claim everyone should have a gun and that somehow we would all be safer. Let's follow that logic a little further, if everyone had access to a nuclear bomb, do you really believe the world would be safer and that nobody would use it for evil and senseless purposes. If you really believe that, would you have allowed the insane shooters of Columbine, Aurora and the more recent shootings to own personal nuclear bombs? That would be insanity and is the insanity of the argument that everyone should be armed.
The standard conservative response to the latest batch of mass shootings is to say that we should get better at finding the mentally disturbed. It does not however address whether or not we should deny the mentally disturbed access to weapons. A knife can be used as a weapon; but, unless you are actively suicidal or homicidal you should probably have access to some type of knife if only to cut up your steak. Perhaps a plastic knife for really disturbed people. Do rational people really think we will all be safer if crazy people can own tanks or cannons or machine guns?
Perhaps the weapons you may own should be limited based on what weapons we can trust you to use properly. Limit the crazy to plastic knives, members of state militias to non-intercontinental weapons and no weapons of mass destruction. I would not allow local police to have military jets with tactical weapons. The police are supposed to protect and serve us, not kill thousands of innocents. I am not even for the militarization of the police and oddly enough, neither are most libertarians or far right conservatives. They should try and be consistent to. If you don't want the police to have certain weapons then you cannot promote individuals owning them.
I have a relative who sold drugs a very long time ago, decades ago. He was convicted of a non-violent felony and is no longer allowed to own a gun. In fact, he will not stay in a place where there are guns and has been on the straight and narrow for decades. I might allow non-violent offenders to own a gun to protect themselves or to hunt; but, if you use a weapon in a crime or violence, yeah, I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun or machine gun or sniper rifle or weapon of mass destruction. Does that belief make me a crazy radical gun controlling commie? I don't think so and the founding fathers would have agreed with me.
Can we at least agree that limitations should be put on weapons ownership by the insane and violent criminals? I don't believe either group would have been allowed in a well regulated militia. The Constitution certainly does not give them a right to own guns. I am pretty sure that it didn't allow slaves to own guns. Do you think all slaves should have been allowed to own guns and how do you think that would have turned out in the south? Heck, it was a crime to teach slaves to read. Wave that confederate flag fascists everywhere.
There is a statement made frequently on the left and the right that with rights comes responsibility. If you agree with that then perhaps we could agree that your right to weapons should be aligned with the responsibility you show for limiting your ownership to valid uses. Now, overthrowing the government is not a valid use, that is called treason and you can go to jail for that, so, it would be irrational to expect to government to protect your right to use weapons against the government. If you think you should have the right to own a weapon for hunting then you should probably be limited to owning hunting weapons and having a hunting license. If you believe you should be able to own a weapon to protect your family then you should be probably limited to weapons that do not cause collateral damage. You don't need a machine gun that is powerful enough to kill the police and innocent bystanders to defend yourself from an intruder into your home. Now, the constitution does not say that you can own weapons for the purpose of hunting or to protect yourself; but, those are things I can support IF limited to people who are sane and not violent criminals.
Sorry, we need to talk about something else. You know where it said "a well regulated militia"? Wouldn't that require that people know how to use a weapon and are trained in it's proper usage as a minimum? In California you need a doctor's note to say that you would benefit from marijuana; but, you don't need a certificate from the state or a private agency to say you have a valid reason for owning a weapon. More conservatives are against marijuana legalization for any reason, including medical than are against unrestricted weapon ownership. How many died from smoking marijuana last year and how many died from being shot?
I would have posted this today possibly, as the Oregon mass killing has had time pass; but, a couple more mass killings in recent days means that I shall delay posting as it is too soon to expect either side in the debate to actually think about their positions. I do not know when enough time will have passed. I shall wait until the news articles have slowed and the mass killings have stopped for a bit.
UPDATE:
So I wrote the above a week or two ago. Here is a question, why did the 2nd amendment bother stating why people should have a right to own arms? Why didn't it say that because you have a right to protect yourself and hunt you should have a right to own arms and limit it to a national need for a well regulated militia? Why did the constitution use the term "well regulated" to further define militias that should have weapons? The term "well regulated" presumes that the writers of the amendment did not believe every militia was or deserving or a right to weapons. Do you really think the founding fathers would have allowed states to give weapons to all their citizens with the express purpose of taking over the federal government?
Unlike the constitution, I believe people should be allowed to own weapons to protect themselves and to hunt. I don't think we should only be allowed to own weapons to protect the country, I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves too. I also believe we should change the constitution to clearly state that. Lets take to a vote. Lets write a law, a constitutional amendment that we can all agree on. What would that look like? What weapons should people be allowed to own and for what purposes? Who should be allowed to own weapons of mass destructions, we did go to war in Iraq over that, should average Americans be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction, how about of mass murder?
Friday, October 23, 2015
The Future
Yahoo - Today’s college graduates might not retire till age 75.
The article which attacks young people for not saving enough in the stock market has a couple of really cynical lines. I like the one where the author says that if a 23 year old began saving 10% of his income each month, he would retire by 70 rather than 75. It then says that if they were really aggressive and saved 20% of their income in the stock market, they could retire by 62, the current age of retirement. Do you know that male life expectancy is the United States is 76. Take a moment and think about that. If a 23 year old were to save 10% of his income for 67 years, he could retire and live for 6 years. How does that make sense?
The article presumes the median income for millenials who have college degrees. Now just to start with, median income is one form of average. There are four ways averages are calculated they are called mean, mode, median and midrange. Frequently people will discuss the median income and call it the average; but, it is just one way of calculating an average and in this case it is misleading. What it does not reflect is what most people we consider millenials actually make and what most make is a lot less than $45,000 a year. It is also misleading because it completely ignores the 20% of millennials who are unemployed.
I have to say that I think young people in this country really need to change the game and demand change. They should demand that they be given retirements and if things do not change then tax the rich till they cannot retire or live in peace.
MIT Technology Review - First Gene-Edited Dogs Reported in China.
So scientists in China have announced that they have made dogs with twice the muscle mass of normal dogs by playing with their DNA. They claim this is to find new therapies to help dogs. Are you kidding me? The Chinese have also said that by using gene treatments they hope to increase the IQ of their people 10 points a year. The Chinese plan on modifying the genes of their people to make them smarter, stronger and to have more stamina. They plan on creating a super race and don't be shocked because US scientists working for the government in DARPA are doing the exact same thing.
I should also report that the age of 75 for retirement assumes you are a college graduate. I guess if you are not a college graduate then you should just expect to work till you die.
Time - Here’s What the Westboro Baptist Church Thinks of Kim Davis.
Kim Davis is the clerk who refused to follow a court order and issue marriage licenses to gays. Westboro Baptist Church is the church that carries around signs that say "God Hates Fags" and pickets soldiers funerals. Apparently Westboro has taken Ms. Davis to task for having been married multiple times. While I appreciate their consistency I must ask why they have spent more time attacking gays than people who cheat on their spouses. Heck, adultery made the ten commandments and homosexuality did not. Where are their priorities; but, then again where are the priorities of anyone who claims to be Christian and yet tolerates adulterers in their church and not gays?
Awhile ago I wrote a post on gun rights and did not post it at the time. I did not write the article because of the latest mass shooting and did not want to post it while the people involved had yet to be buried. I will post it tomorrow or later today.My post does not say what the laws regarding weapons and citizens should be. Instead it discusses a simpler question, does the government have the right to limit people's access to weapons and what needs do people have for weapons. I hope the readers do not see it as me promoting or rejecting gun control; because, it is neither. The purpose it to begin to look at the real issues and the idea of matching personal rights to weapons against the usefulness of the weapons to the people seeking them. In short, does the average person really need a tank to protect his family from home intruders or to go hunting.
The article which attacks young people for not saving enough in the stock market has a couple of really cynical lines. I like the one where the author says that if a 23 year old began saving 10% of his income each month, he would retire by 70 rather than 75. It then says that if they were really aggressive and saved 20% of their income in the stock market, they could retire by 62, the current age of retirement. Do you know that male life expectancy is the United States is 76. Take a moment and think about that. If a 23 year old were to save 10% of his income for 67 years, he could retire and live for 6 years. How does that make sense?
The article presumes the median income for millenials who have college degrees. Now just to start with, median income is one form of average. There are four ways averages are calculated they are called mean, mode, median and midrange. Frequently people will discuss the median income and call it the average; but, it is just one way of calculating an average and in this case it is misleading. What it does not reflect is what most people we consider millenials actually make and what most make is a lot less than $45,000 a year. It is also misleading because it completely ignores the 20% of millennials who are unemployed.
I have to say that I think young people in this country really need to change the game and demand change. They should demand that they be given retirements and if things do not change then tax the rich till they cannot retire or live in peace.
MIT Technology Review - First Gene-Edited Dogs Reported in China.
So scientists in China have announced that they have made dogs with twice the muscle mass of normal dogs by playing with their DNA. They claim this is to find new therapies to help dogs. Are you kidding me? The Chinese have also said that by using gene treatments they hope to increase the IQ of their people 10 points a year. The Chinese plan on modifying the genes of their people to make them smarter, stronger and to have more stamina. They plan on creating a super race and don't be shocked because US scientists working for the government in DARPA are doing the exact same thing.
I should also report that the age of 75 for retirement assumes you are a college graduate. I guess if you are not a college graduate then you should just expect to work till you die.
Time - Here’s What the Westboro Baptist Church Thinks of Kim Davis.
Kim Davis is the clerk who refused to follow a court order and issue marriage licenses to gays. Westboro Baptist Church is the church that carries around signs that say "God Hates Fags" and pickets soldiers funerals. Apparently Westboro has taken Ms. Davis to task for having been married multiple times. While I appreciate their consistency I must ask why they have spent more time attacking gays than people who cheat on their spouses. Heck, adultery made the ten commandments and homosexuality did not. Where are their priorities; but, then again where are the priorities of anyone who claims to be Christian and yet tolerates adulterers in their church and not gays?
Awhile ago I wrote a post on gun rights and did not post it at the time. I did not write the article because of the latest mass shooting and did not want to post it while the people involved had yet to be buried. I will post it tomorrow or later today.My post does not say what the laws regarding weapons and citizens should be. Instead it discusses a simpler question, does the government have the right to limit people's access to weapons and what needs do people have for weapons. I hope the readers do not see it as me promoting or rejecting gun control; because, it is neither. The purpose it to begin to look at the real issues and the idea of matching personal rights to weapons against the usefulness of the weapons to the people seeking them. In short, does the average person really need a tank to protect his family from home intruders or to go hunting.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Nonsense Logic and Opportunity.
I was watching this interview on David Letterman with John Oliver about soccer. I had no idea what it was going to say and then I heard the line that mattered. Apparently, in England there are four different team structures of soccer players. The Premier League, Championship, First Division and Second Division and the Conference (amateurs). Now Letterman then asks if theoretically one could move from amateur to Premier and Oliver says that while it is theoretically possible, there is no chance it will happen because the Premier league can actually pay money to hire players and as much as they want.
YouTube - John Oliver Explains English Soccer to David Letterman.
Earlier Oliver had stated that the levels in soccer were basically the class system. It is the same in America and we accept that. There is pro-baseball, AA, triple A and all sort of other levels going down to T-Ball (for little children). Can you imagine the best junior high baseball team in the world playing against the Yankees being a fair competition in any manner way shape or form? That would be insanity; but, Letterman seems to think that it would be fair in English soccer teams. Putting 8 year olds against seasoned professional baseball players is not fair, it is not even a competition. Sure, theoretically angels could help the 8 year olds win; but, even there it would not be fair, would it?
Here is the reality. Right does not necessarily make right. If you think it does then explain the holocaust or the killing of 40 million Russians during the communist revolution or the killing of 60 million Chinese under Mao. Nope, if that is to tough for you, explain why the Romans could kill Jesus, was that right making might or might doing wrong. Might alone does not justify it's actions.
A merit based society is based on the idea that those who are better should rise to the top, not some of the time, all of the time. That opportunity should be based on merit rather than relations and birth or inheritance. If based on those things it is called an oligarchy. Do you think that your children have as much chance of succeeding as the children of the wealthy or famous? The difference between America and England is that their non-Premier people know they don't have the same opportunity.
YouTube - John Oliver Explains English Soccer to David Letterman.
Earlier Oliver had stated that the levels in soccer were basically the class system. It is the same in America and we accept that. There is pro-baseball, AA, triple A and all sort of other levels going down to T-Ball (for little children). Can you imagine the best junior high baseball team in the world playing against the Yankees being a fair competition in any manner way shape or form? That would be insanity; but, Letterman seems to think that it would be fair in English soccer teams. Putting 8 year olds against seasoned professional baseball players is not fair, it is not even a competition. Sure, theoretically angels could help the 8 year olds win; but, even there it would not be fair, would it?
Here is the reality. Right does not necessarily make right. If you think it does then explain the holocaust or the killing of 40 million Russians during the communist revolution or the killing of 60 million Chinese under Mao. Nope, if that is to tough for you, explain why the Romans could kill Jesus, was that right making might or might doing wrong. Might alone does not justify it's actions.
A merit based society is based on the idea that those who are better should rise to the top, not some of the time, all of the time. That opportunity should be based on merit rather than relations and birth or inheritance. If based on those things it is called an oligarchy. Do you think that your children have as much chance of succeeding as the children of the wealthy or famous? The difference between America and England is that their non-Premier people know they don't have the same opportunity.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
More Baloney In The News - Media Propaganda
Fox - Gutfeld: Why America has trust issues with the media. The speakers opinion, from Conservative Fox, is convinced that the reason the media is no longer trusted is because it is liberal. He goes as far as to claim that Fox is not part of the media. The establishment cannot seem to understand why people jointed the Tea Party or Occupy movement a few years back and now cannot seem to understand the support for Sanders or Trump and the media is even more confused over why they are not trusted. The reason is quite simple, because everything they say is a sales job rather than an attempt to just present the facts in any in depth way. The hypocrisy of the media is only highlighted by the following video that literally auto played after the one above.
Fox - Anarchy in America. In this "report" Bill O'Reilly talks about how certain cities (he chooses San Francisco) are considering themselves "sanctuary cities" and not going after illegal aliens. I sort of agree with him on that, cities, counties and states need to keep the laws. Whether it be federal safety laws or any other laws. The problem is that O'Reilly said that the legislators who voted to remain a sanctuary city should all be jailed even if the law would not allow them to be prosecuted. Is this the same Fox News and O'Reilly that thought the clerk should not have to issue marriage licenses because it violated her religious beliefs and also supported that idiot farmer in Arizona who thought he had an innate right to graze on federal lands and not pay a fee? Well, yes it is. Fox is a bunch of hypocrites and it was funny to see this right after the video on the lack of trust in the media.
New Scientist - Carbon nanotubes found in children’s lungs for the first time. This is a really important finding. Carbon nanotubes are created in labs and may have many important uses down the road. We don't know if they are cancerous and it is believed they could be or at least increase the chance of cancer. It should also be noted that they have never been found in the air before; but, now are being found in the lungs of children in Paris and may also be in the lungs of adults in Paris. The big scary question is where are they coming from and how are they being released. If they are intentionally being released then we have an even bigger issue; but, we should at least be trying to find out how they are getting in the air. For my regular readers you may recall that not long ago the French also accidently sold some genetically modified sheep, illegally, that were put into the food supply "by accident". France might want to consider keeping a better eye on it's labs.
Fox - Business Insider - Donald Trump has experienced a major shift in one of the most significant predictors of electoral success. The short of the story is that 60% of Republicans have said that they could vote for Trump with 43% saying they think he will win the nomination. No matter how much support he has, the Republican party establishment does not want him because he is not already sold out to their traditional economic interests.
Yahoo - Reuters - Marijuana Use and Disorders Have Doubled Since 2001. The title and the way the article is written are both mislead. The article claims that Marijuana use has doubled according to surveys. Well, that would make sense as it is now legal in about half the states for medical uses. After having taken car of, helped and known people who have had cancer and gone through chemotherapy and radiation therapy, anyone who deny them marijuana to me is scum. It really upset me that my father could take morphine and was dying but it was still illegal for him to smoke weed even if it helped him to eat. He would not have taken it and did not want the morphine either; but, it really brought it home for me. This post is about marijuana though, it is about the media slant. The very first sentence of the article is a lie, it states that "abuse" of marijuana has doubled since 2001 because us of marijuana has doubled. Think about that. Do you honestly believe that people who are using medical marijuana are all "abusing" it? If you read the whole article you will find that 10% of the population is believed to have used marijuana in the last few years and of the roughly 320 million Americans that means that roughly 32 million have used marijuana in the last few years. I should point out that about 25% of the population had at least one day where they had at least 5 heavy drinks according to the CDC, or 2/12 times the number of people who even smoked marijuana once during that same period. Now, according to this article, the number of people that actually had a clinical problem with marijuana was roughly 3% of the 32 million who used it or a little more than 300,000. I am pretty sure the number of alcoholics is much higher than that. I should point out that it is believed that about 14 million people have problems with alcohol (Alcoholics Information - Statistics About Alcoholism). The statistic means that 2 1/2 times many people as have smoked marijuana in the past few years have serious problems with alcohol and the number of people wish serious problems with alcohol is about 50 times higher than the number of people who misuse marijuana. I should also state that later in the article it says that 3 out of 10 users were diagnosed with a marijuana disorder; but, aside from the fact that is 30% and not their earlier quoted 1.5% to 3% of users. The reason for the confusion is because they are playing games with numbers and they never define what this marijuana "disorder" is.
Now the source article came from JAMA which is publication of the Psychiatrists in America. You know, the people I wrote about recently who push psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac and Valium and, well, the list goes on and on. I hate to say this; but, I don't articles about medicine very much anymore. In fact, I lost most of my faith in the articles when I discovered that the number one study quoted that claimed second hand smoke was worse than first hand smoke was not based on second hand smoke; but, was instead based on the effect of smoking on babies when they were still in the womb. If someone wants me to trust what they say about a study, they have to provide me with the name of the study and where I can read it myself. I don't expect my readers to trust that I am accurately reporting on news articles, I provide a link to the article itself.
UPDATE:
I had just posted the above and I returned to read news articles when I came across this.
Fox - Bill Murray reportedly dating former child star Jenny Lewis.
Personally, I had never heard of Jenny Lewis and there is a good reason, she was not a "child star", at best she had been a child actor. She has actually been better known for music since 1998. I should also point out that she is 38 years old. What do you think sounds more shocking that Bill Murray is dating a 38 year old musician or a "former child star"? The truth is the article cannot even state that Murray is dating her, it is a "rumor".
Fox - Anarchy in America. In this "report" Bill O'Reilly talks about how certain cities (he chooses San Francisco) are considering themselves "sanctuary cities" and not going after illegal aliens. I sort of agree with him on that, cities, counties and states need to keep the laws. Whether it be federal safety laws or any other laws. The problem is that O'Reilly said that the legislators who voted to remain a sanctuary city should all be jailed even if the law would not allow them to be prosecuted. Is this the same Fox News and O'Reilly that thought the clerk should not have to issue marriage licenses because it violated her religious beliefs and also supported that idiot farmer in Arizona who thought he had an innate right to graze on federal lands and not pay a fee? Well, yes it is. Fox is a bunch of hypocrites and it was funny to see this right after the video on the lack of trust in the media.
New Scientist - Carbon nanotubes found in children’s lungs for the first time. This is a really important finding. Carbon nanotubes are created in labs and may have many important uses down the road. We don't know if they are cancerous and it is believed they could be or at least increase the chance of cancer. It should also be noted that they have never been found in the air before; but, now are being found in the lungs of children in Paris and may also be in the lungs of adults in Paris. The big scary question is where are they coming from and how are they being released. If they are intentionally being released then we have an even bigger issue; but, we should at least be trying to find out how they are getting in the air. For my regular readers you may recall that not long ago the French also accidently sold some genetically modified sheep, illegally, that were put into the food supply "by accident". France might want to consider keeping a better eye on it's labs.
Fox - Business Insider - Donald Trump has experienced a major shift in one of the most significant predictors of electoral success. The short of the story is that 60% of Republicans have said that they could vote for Trump with 43% saying they think he will win the nomination. No matter how much support he has, the Republican party establishment does not want him because he is not already sold out to their traditional economic interests.
Yahoo - Reuters - Marijuana Use and Disorders Have Doubled Since 2001. The title and the way the article is written are both mislead. The article claims that Marijuana use has doubled according to surveys. Well, that would make sense as it is now legal in about half the states for medical uses. After having taken car of, helped and known people who have had cancer and gone through chemotherapy and radiation therapy, anyone who deny them marijuana to me is scum. It really upset me that my father could take morphine and was dying but it was still illegal for him to smoke weed even if it helped him to eat. He would not have taken it and did not want the morphine either; but, it really brought it home for me. This post is about marijuana though, it is about the media slant. The very first sentence of the article is a lie, it states that "abuse" of marijuana has doubled since 2001 because us of marijuana has doubled. Think about that. Do you honestly believe that people who are using medical marijuana are all "abusing" it? If you read the whole article you will find that 10% of the population is believed to have used marijuana in the last few years and of the roughly 320 million Americans that means that roughly 32 million have used marijuana in the last few years. I should point out that about 25% of the population had at least one day where they had at least 5 heavy drinks according to the CDC, or 2/12 times the number of people who even smoked marijuana once during that same period. Now, according to this article, the number of people that actually had a clinical problem with marijuana was roughly 3% of the 32 million who used it or a little more than 300,000. I am pretty sure the number of alcoholics is much higher than that. I should point out that it is believed that about 14 million people have problems with alcohol (Alcoholics Information - Statistics About Alcoholism). The statistic means that 2 1/2 times many people as have smoked marijuana in the past few years have serious problems with alcohol and the number of people wish serious problems with alcohol is about 50 times higher than the number of people who misuse marijuana. I should also state that later in the article it says that 3 out of 10 users were diagnosed with a marijuana disorder; but, aside from the fact that is 30% and not their earlier quoted 1.5% to 3% of users. The reason for the confusion is because they are playing games with numbers and they never define what this marijuana "disorder" is.
Now the source article came from JAMA which is publication of the Psychiatrists in America. You know, the people I wrote about recently who push psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac and Valium and, well, the list goes on and on. I hate to say this; but, I don't articles about medicine very much anymore. In fact, I lost most of my faith in the articles when I discovered that the number one study quoted that claimed second hand smoke was worse than first hand smoke was not based on second hand smoke; but, was instead based on the effect of smoking on babies when they were still in the womb. If someone wants me to trust what they say about a study, they have to provide me with the name of the study and where I can read it myself. I don't expect my readers to trust that I am accurately reporting on news articles, I provide a link to the article itself.
UPDATE:
I had just posted the above and I returned to read news articles when I came across this.
Fox - Bill Murray reportedly dating former child star Jenny Lewis.
Personally, I had never heard of Jenny Lewis and there is a good reason, she was not a "child star", at best she had been a child actor. She has actually been better known for music since 1998. I should also point out that she is 38 years old. What do you think sounds more shocking that Bill Murray is dating a 38 year old musician or a "former child star"? The truth is the article cannot even state that Murray is dating her, it is a "rumor".
Paul Ryan Full of Nonsense
The speaker of the House of Representatives quit, his name was Boehner. Now people in the media pronounce it Bayner; but, lets be truthful nowhere in English does oe make the ayyyy sound. The rules of English tell us that when a vowel is followed by another vowel, the first vowel is pronounced in its whole sound. Boner. We are not a nation of 12 year old boys in school and shouldn't change the rules of English to accommodate foolishness.
Be that as it may. Nobody in the Republican house wants the job as speaker as that would require them actually trying to work with Democrats to get laws passed, you know, doing their job. The one person who appears to be able to get sufficient support is Paul Ryan, you know, the guy who wants to be President. After a lot of pressure he has said he will accept the job; but, only if every Republican in congress supports him. What???
Yahoo - AP - Ryan to seek speakership if House GOP unifies behind him.
Why is it so hard to find a Republican that wants to lead his party in the House of Representatives? I have never seen or read of this in history. What is it this year, I mean, Vice President Joe Biden is being begged to run for President by his party and he doesn't want to. Actually, Joe Biden lost his son and is looking to retire so I can appreciate his position. Ryan actually wants to be President. Can you imagine his campaign, "I will only accept being President if all the Republicans and Democrats support me". He has all the backbone and courage of a jellyfish. Ryan is claiming that he wants to not spend less time with his family or travel for fundraisers, he didn't have a problem with either of those things when running for President. The truth is that the Republican party is no longer a party of consensus and nobody can get it's support. Currently, it is a party of corporate whores and extremists, not the conservative, pro-American party of the past and even the Republican voters know it.
Be that as it may. Nobody in the Republican house wants the job as speaker as that would require them actually trying to work with Democrats to get laws passed, you know, doing their job. The one person who appears to be able to get sufficient support is Paul Ryan, you know, the guy who wants to be President. After a lot of pressure he has said he will accept the job; but, only if every Republican in congress supports him. What???
Yahoo - AP - Ryan to seek speakership if House GOP unifies behind him.
Why is it so hard to find a Republican that wants to lead his party in the House of Representatives? I have never seen or read of this in history. What is it this year, I mean, Vice President Joe Biden is being begged to run for President by his party and he doesn't want to. Actually, Joe Biden lost his son and is looking to retire so I can appreciate his position. Ryan actually wants to be President. Can you imagine his campaign, "I will only accept being President if all the Republicans and Democrats support me". He has all the backbone and courage of a jellyfish. Ryan is claiming that he wants to not spend less time with his family or travel for fundraisers, he didn't have a problem with either of those things when running for President. The truth is that the Republican party is no longer a party of consensus and nobody can get it's support. Currently, it is a party of corporate whores and extremists, not the conservative, pro-American party of the past and even the Republican voters know it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Unexplained Changes In Your Life
Fox - DC church calls proposed bike lanes unconstitutional.
The article itself is about a church suing over bike lanes taking out their parking. I know a lot about transportation laws, I have been asked to write a book about public easements and I am telling you right now that the church does not have a leg to stand on and will lose horribly thereby setting the legal precedent for cities to put in bike lanes and take away parking and traffic lanes.
Here is what you need to consider. All across the nation crosswalks are being modified, they now resemble the crosswalk on the cover of the Beatle's Abbey Road cover. At the same time all across the nation bike lanes are being put in at the same time. Do you ever wonder why? Funding determines what gets built and federal funding has a big impact on local paving. Local municipalities are responding to the Federal governments call for an "intermodal" approach to streets; but, there is a problem. Municipalities do not own their streets, they only have a public easement (the right to traverse the streets and keep them clear for such purpose).
Traditionally, sidewalks were for foot traffic and streets were for wheeled traffic (originally for horse drawn traffic). The law also frequently prohibits pedestrians from walking on street if there is a sidewalk and from driving on sidewalks almost always. Those laws are established. Creating a new type of public easement limited to bikes is an outgrowth of laws allowing for bus only lanes. This is why I did not write the book on public easements, I bore myself when discussing these things; but, they are relevant to our lives. The truth is that bus lanes are not needed, one can make an argument for ride share lanes as they were, in at least California, required to be built with funds specifically for such a thing and lanes that had previously been built could not be re-purposed (yes, there is actually a court case over that).
If you cannot repurpose existing highways lanes for limited uses, why should municipalities be allowed to repurpose traffic lanes for only one type of traffic. Why should we have traffic lanes limited to bikes when bikes can ride in car lanes. Bikes are not limited to any lane, buses are not limited to any lane; but, cars and trucks are. Is that legal, probably not if the right law suit was brought. One that questioned why streets were allowed to be made into public easements for limited use by vehicles.
The article itself is about a church suing over bike lanes taking out their parking. I know a lot about transportation laws, I have been asked to write a book about public easements and I am telling you right now that the church does not have a leg to stand on and will lose horribly thereby setting the legal precedent for cities to put in bike lanes and take away parking and traffic lanes.
Here is what you need to consider. All across the nation crosswalks are being modified, they now resemble the crosswalk on the cover of the Beatle's Abbey Road cover. At the same time all across the nation bike lanes are being put in at the same time. Do you ever wonder why? Funding determines what gets built and federal funding has a big impact on local paving. Local municipalities are responding to the Federal governments call for an "intermodal" approach to streets; but, there is a problem. Municipalities do not own their streets, they only have a public easement (the right to traverse the streets and keep them clear for such purpose).
Traditionally, sidewalks were for foot traffic and streets were for wheeled traffic (originally for horse drawn traffic). The law also frequently prohibits pedestrians from walking on street if there is a sidewalk and from driving on sidewalks almost always. Those laws are established. Creating a new type of public easement limited to bikes is an outgrowth of laws allowing for bus only lanes. This is why I did not write the book on public easements, I bore myself when discussing these things; but, they are relevant to our lives. The truth is that bus lanes are not needed, one can make an argument for ride share lanes as they were, in at least California, required to be built with funds specifically for such a thing and lanes that had previously been built could not be re-purposed (yes, there is actually a court case over that).
If you cannot repurpose existing highways lanes for limited uses, why should municipalities be allowed to repurpose traffic lanes for only one type of traffic. Why should we have traffic lanes limited to bikes when bikes can ride in car lanes. Bikes are not limited to any lane, buses are not limited to any lane; but, cars and trucks are. Is that legal, probably not if the right law suit was brought. One that questioned why streets were allowed to be made into public easements for limited use by vehicles.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Alien Worlds and Politics
The Atlantic - The Most Mysterious Star in Our Galaxy.
Scientists have found a star that apparently has objects circling it that may have been made by intelligent life. That is the short of the article. Now, the reasons that they believe this has to do with the age of the star, the lack of consistency of the circling objects and some other observations. The fact is that it is only a question of when we find other intelligent life in the universe. If you believe in God then you have to believe that he didn't need to make so many planets if we were going to be the only sentient beings using them and if you are an atheist you have to believe that planets similar to ours would have had similar results.
There is one philosophy that might assume that there is no other life in the universe. If you believe God made the universe so that we could discover that we were his only creation. Of course, that doesn't explain angels. If you believe that God made the universe and angels then you already believe in aliens.
I personally don't think we have a clue what is circling that planet. I sure don't know. My thoughts on aliens are sort of limited. I do believe there is life on other planets, what kind and why, I have no idea. I believe something happened at Roswell and that we have still not been told the truth. I am far from convinced it was aliens. I do not believe that aliens from other planets are regularly visiting the earth. I do believe that reports of flying saucers represent something people are seeing and are not all hoaxes. Finally, I believe the media regularly ridicules strange phenomenon because they don't want to be seen as not knowing more than the rest of us. The media saying they don't know the truth is like a police officer arresting you and saying he doesn't have the authority. I don't expect to see either happen.
Here is my question. If one day we actually communicate via any method with alien life (lets say laser beam communication that takes 5,000 years to reach the other planet), how will the media react? If we received a message from an alien planet that had been sent 5,000 years ago I think most people would accept it pretty quick and not even be surprised. The media, government and business would freak out and be scared, then they would try to scare us too. Alien life is only a threat to the people in charge. People who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans were not half as afraid of the conquistadores as the people who ruled the empire. The people who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans had nothing to lose and often sided against the Incans.
What would an alien race have to offer the world that might cause 99% to go along. What if they promised that all people would have medicine or homes or food or protection from aggression? If you want to take over a country or society and not have to spend all your time managing and fighting them, you have to offer to be better than the people they used to be under and that is our problem in IRAQ.
It is pretty hard to tell people in Iraq that America is better for them because Hussein used to torture them when we also torture them. How do we tell Iraqis they are better off under us when their houses are all destroyed and are even more likely to have their children killed? If the Iraqis and Afghanis don't believe us then why would they not accept the promises of aliens over ours?
There is a part of the bible that has always confused me. After the final battle at Armageddon, Jesus takes over and rules for 1,000 years. At the end of that time he releases Satan and some of the people on earth fight against Jesus with Satan. Why? What if it is because they believe they can get a better deal than others? What if it is all the believers of Ayn Rand, those who think that helping one another is the despised "collectivist mentality". The most hardcore believers in dog eat dog capitalism believe that working together and helping the less fortunate is the sin and that selfishness is being godlike. Psychopaths and Sociopaths. If ever aliens come here, it will be the rich and powerful that will have to change their ways if we are to stay in charge of our own future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)