Mr. Michael Stone, the “Portland Progressive Examiner” (Examiner.com) rants about the Texas Board of Education considering “new curriculum…designed to challenge evolution, and introduce creationism”. This short article is my response.
They want to ADD stuff to the curriculum. They don’t remove evolution. They add creationism. This is good. If you want to promote knowledge and thinking that is. However, if you (Mr. Stone) want to indoctrinate, this is bad. I understand your frustration. As an engineer and scientist who is also a religious individual, I myself deal with these contradictions all the time. Let me explain this contradiction on a different level. Liberals are comfortable with thinking that we are all evolved from apes. This means that the past is low and unsophisticated. We should look forward to change, and away from traditions that belong to the “lower” past. Along with that goes the constitution and all of what many of us used to call “America” just two or three decades ago. Conservatives believe that our origin is divine. Thus, the past is perfect and anything that takes us farther from the past can not be as good. Conservatives cherish traditions, the constitution and the good old USA. How is that for a summary of the clash we are in?
This is a short and sharp response, written by “Happy Indep” to a gun control article by one fool Michael Stone who is the “Portland Progressive Exminer” in http://www.progressive.com:
“There should be strict and stringent requirements for those who own and possess fire arms.”
Have you ever read the US Constitution? There is a little pain in the butt set of rules called the bill of rights.
It is the gun that allows and secures your sorry asses right to write the vile hate filled crap you write. That just goes completely over your head though don’t it?
Care to enlighten us all as to just WHICH gun law has stopped people from using guns?
Bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.
It is not un-American to fight to preserve our rights against tyrannical government. (See the quote at the bottom of this post.) The 2nd Amendment clearly intended to make sure citizens will have the means to do exactly that. However, I have a different issue here. As much as I hate it, more than 50% of Americans voted for that anti-American and corrupt president – Obama. So the question is, is the minority justified in fighting the will of the majority? Bear in mind that the constitution has been gradually eroded for decades. The only difference is that the new administration continues in the erosion set forth, in a much faster pace than before. Everybody was agreeable with constitutional erosion for decades (except for ranting), and several periods of republican majority were not used to un-erode the constitution or to strengthen it agains further erosion by adding amendments and improving existing amendments. Maybe it is just the nature of the beast – that a constitution focused on giving the power to the people, will be eroded by power-grabbing politicians. (Which politicians are by definition power grabbers.) And by definition there will always be enough people who prefer to rely on government that will let politicians grab power. Maybe this amazing experiment in liberty has come to its end? Maybe the only solution (other than giving up) is a separation to two countries – a liberal and a constitutional? Given the results of the several previous elections that were so close to 50:50, could it be that we already are two separate countries?
“As civil rulers… may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces… might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe)
By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog
Best Price in My Area (Portland Metro, OR) for “regular”.
11/08 When Obama was elected $1.75.
Interesting and not surprising take of a Republican gov. on the Stimulous Bill. What I noticed which I did not know before, is that there is a provision in the bill that allows state legislators to override governors that do not want to take the money allotted for their states, and take it anyway. Talk about power grab of the Federal Government and the Congress…
This articles is from CNN.com 3/11/09
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — The United States faces a Zimbabwe-style economic collapse if it keeps “spending a bunch of money we don’t have,” South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Wednesday.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he does not want to spend money that his state doesn’t have.
Sanford, a Republican, has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s $800 billion stimulus plan. He said he’ll turn down about a quarter of his state’s $2.8 billion share unless Washington lets him use that money to pay down debt.
“What you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have and send it to different states, we’ll create jobs,” he said. “If that’s the case, why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?”
Zimbabwe has been in the throes of an economic meltdown ever since the southern African nation embarked on a chaotic land reform program. Its official inflation rate topped 11 million percent in 2008, with its treasury printing banknotes in the trillion-dollar range to keep up with the plummeting value of its currency.
But with South Carolina’s unemployment rate now the second-highest in the country, state lawmakers will attempt to override Sanford and take the $700 million if he turns it down, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said.
“They will use the total economic stimulus to stimulate the economy, jump-start it, so we can get out of the ditch we are in as a state and as a nation,” Bauer, a fellow Republican, said in a written statement Wednesday.
Labor Department figures released Wednesday showed South Carolina’s January unemployment rate hit 10.4 percent, second only to Michigan’s 11.6 percent.
Sanford is one of several Republican governors who have criticized the nearly $800 billion stimulus package, which passed with minimal GOP support in the Senate and none in the House of Representatives. Other governors, such as California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger or Michigan Democrat Jennifer Granholm, have said they would take any money Republican-led states reject.
But Sanford told reporters that taking the money now would leave the state in the lurch in two years, “when those funds dry up.”
“Fundamentally, if you boil down what the stimulus means for South Carolina, it means we would go through the process of spending a bunch of money we don’t have,” he said.
The stimulus measure allows state legislatures to override governors and take the money — a provision championed by South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House. Clyburn said Sanford is unlikely to get any waiver from the administration, and he called the governor’s announcement “100 percent political posturing.”
“This recovery package is designed to stabilize communities, to save and create jobs, and help our economy get back in a growth mode,” he told reporters. “And you don’t do that by paying down debt that’s been incurred over a long period of time.”
And Bauer said that if South Carolina turns down the money, “South Carolina taxpayers will be taking on the debt for economic stimulus money sent elsewhere.”
Below are excerpts from James Sherk’s article in the Heritage Foundation website regarding the “Employee Free Choice Act”. The act does everything but giving employees any choice. It sure gives unions the power to intimidate employees who vote against joining them s and gives government agencies the power to force contracts on employers that do not settle a contract with the union within a certain period of time.
In a nut shell, it gives Unions much better chance to organize work places in which employees will vote for joining the union just to avoid intimidation and harassment. Then it puts the negotiation power in the hands of the union. All the union needs to do is to come with extreme demands, and drag its feet through the negotiations to exhaust the time allowed by the law. Then contracts will be imposed by government bureaucrats.
Card Check Creates Government-Run Workplaces
by James Sherk
The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does more than effectively eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union. Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company’s operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces.
Mutual Consent and Good Faith Bargaining…The end result is a contract that both sides can live with, even if they would have preferred different terms…If negotiations break down, the workers can strike or management can lock them out, but neither side must work under an unsatisfactory contract.
EFCA Imposes Contracts…Under Section 3 of the act (misleadingly titled “Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements”)…EFCA provides that—after unions organize a business—the company has 10 days to meet with union officials to begin collective bargaining. After 90 days of bargaining, either party may request mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Thirty days later, if the parties have not settled on a contract or agreed to extend negotiations, the FMC…shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of two years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.
Bureaucrats Dictate Workplace Conditions…Unions would have strong incentives to make extreme demands and hope the arbitrator splits the difference between these demands and management’s position…Granting such a radical amount of power to an arbitrator puts control of workplaces in the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats
By Bigblock57, Blogarwarning blog.
The question if identities of Conceal Carry Permit holders should be a public record or kept from public eyes’ is now being dealt with by the Oregon legislature. Here is my response to an article on the subject in the Portland edition of Examiner.com. (Edited since initial posting).
To begin with, all licensing of firearms or the permission to carry them in a certain way, and the background check now required to purchase them are infringements on the basic constitutional right to bear arms. It is all part of the grand plan of left-leaning organizations and politicians to take guns away from citizens. First, a gun owner shows up on a state list of people who purchased a gun. Then the fact that a person has a permit to carry concealed weapon is a public record which gives anti-gun activists access to his/her name and address. At the right time, these activists will begin to personally harass permit holders (which is exactly why their identity needs to be kept from the public). In the end owning a gun will involve so much hassle and controversy that many people will want to have nothing to do with that. In case of a decision to completely ban guns, the list compiled by the state from background checks will automatically become a confiscation list. Look at this childish excuse why identity of permit holders needs to be public: “people deserve the right to know who is packing a gun”; Really? what makes them deserve that? Is there a hint here that if someone “packs” a gun he/she is someone bad? dangerous? The funny thing is that the guns in the hands of really dangerous people (i.e criminals) are not on any state list, and are being carried concealed with no permit. How come anti-gunners are never concerned about the inability of law enforcement to deal with those? Instead they are obsessed with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who (unnecessarily and against their constitutional rights) went through a background check before they could purchase their weapon, or granted concealed carry permit. Rights aside, society should have the proper ratio bewteen guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and guns in the hands of criminals. This necessity is confirmed when comparing crime trends and rates in states and cities that make it easy to own and carry guns vs. states and cities that make it hard. Anything that makes it harder or less convenient to own and carry a weapon, is unconstitutional and bad for public safety. Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit holders is important for both.
By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog.
One of the most beloved slogans of the gun control crowd is that for every justifiable gun-related death (i.e self-defense) there are otherwise 43 gun related deaths. The reader is supposed to conclude here that “it is not worth it” to have guns among the general population. Second amendment and gun rights aside, what is that 43:1 ratio?
This ratio is a result of the famous research of doctors Kellerman and Reay that was published in 1986. It studied reasons for gun related deaths in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The table below is a summary of their results:
389:9 = 43:1
There are two phases for evaluating this study.
Phase 1: What’s in it.
The most obvious observation is that 333 of the 389 gun related deaths are suicides. Including those in the research must be under the assumption that with no access to guns those 333 suicides would have been alive today. Which is utter nonsense. A person who is determined to commit a suicide will do that, with or without a gun. So now we are left with 56:9, which is more like 6:1. We can leave it at that, or go further to say that out of the 56, 42 are criminal homicides. Since we know that gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, there is no point in discussing these 41 in the context of gun control. Criminals will keep having guns and will keep using them to kill people. So what are we left with? 15:9? Which is 1.5:1. The dreaded 43:1 have shrunk quite a bit hasn’t it?
Phase 2: what is not in it.
The 9 justified self defense deaths, are just the tip of the iceberg of self defense by a gun. The body of the iceberg, all underwater is the many times that guns were used in self defense, which either a stopped a crime without shooting, or in which the attacker was shot but not killed. The numbers are astounding. Since no such research was conducted for the same population during the same period of time, there is no way to establish an alternative ratio for the research of Kellerman and Reay. However, there is no need. The numbers speak volumes.
In their study, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995) Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz concluded that guns are used to defend law abiding citizens against crimes 2.5 million times each year. Out of them As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig
The good news about using guns for self-defense is that in only less than 3% of the cases that a gun was used in self defense, a shooting actually occurred. In most cases guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to (“I’ve got a gun”) or displayed, and this is sufficient to stop a crime.
In summary, not only the dreaded ratio of 43:1 is nonsense and baseless, it is also completely not important as it looks at those cases that are less than 3% of the self-defense-by-guns story.
An article by Michale Asher: How Oil Drilling Reduces Pollution! The City of Santa Barbara Got It Right!
California environmental group advocates drilling to reduce oil pollution on local beaches
In 1969, a Union Oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara experienced a blowout. Pipes burst, and oil spilled into the sea — as much as 100,000 barrels worth. The resultant oil slick so horrified local residents that Earth Day was born. Soon thereafter, the first of a series of laws banning offshore drilling was enacted.
The chance of another spill, locals reasoned, just wasn’t worth drilling. And despite four decades of progress in eliminating such accidents, the ban has stood. Yet, local beaches still see oil slicks and its resultant damage. Where’s the oil coming from?
A seep occurs when oil escapes naturally from the ground, due to pressure in the underground reservoir. Off the California coast, seeps release an incredibly large amount of oil. In fact, since the 1969 accident, the amount of such seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel alone has been over 30 times as large as the amount from the spill itself.
We can’t stop such seeps, but we can reduce them. How? By drilling.
Earlier this year, University of California geophysics professor Bruce Luyendyk spoke to a citizens’ town hall forum at Santa Barbara. He told citizens that the oil mucking up Santa Barbara beaches was due to seeps, not spills. According to Luyendyk, the amount of oil escaping naturally from just one set of seeps in the Santa Barbara channel is equal to about 42 thousand gallons a day — equal to an Exxon Valdez-size oil spill every 5 or 6 years.
Oil isn’t the only thing seeping either. About 3 million cubic feet of natural gas escape each day from the ocean floor off the California Coast. By comparison, your average home uses between 200 and 300 cubic feet per day.
This is oil and gas we could be capturing and using. Instead, it’s going to waste and polluting beaches in the process.
The sheer size of the seepage has led to the formation of a new environmental group, called SOS California — which stands for Stop Oil Seeps. The group wants to lift the offshore drilling ban not to generate oil, but to reduce oil pollution from seepage. They point to university studies which demonstrate that extracting oil through drilling reduces reservoir pressure. That, in turn, reduces seepage. SOS advocates lifting the drilling ban for just that reason — to reduce oil pollution on local beaches.
The Outer Continental Shelf is rich in oil. According to the US DOE, areas now off limits to drilling hold around 18 billion barrels. Other estimates are higher. Alaska’s ANWR holds an additional 10 billion barrels. Together, that’s enough to cut our foreign oil imports by 20% for the next 32 years, and generate $3.5 trillion in revenue. That’s trillion, with a “T”.
Polls show overwhelming support among Americans to lift the drilling ban. But is Washington listening? At the Democratic convention this week in Denver, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped to tell a group protesting the drilling ban, “can we drill your heads”? At the national level, the message doesn’t seem to be getting through.
The Santa Barbara City Council recently voted to lift their local ban on drilling, a largely symbolic act since state and federal laws still prohibit it. It’s a start.
- Excise Tax On Gun Owners?
- Obama’s Health Care – End of Life Rationing Is Here.
- Government Health Care System 1
- Global Warming…
- Armed Society Is Polite Society
- ATF Attack On 2nd Amendment And Gun Rights
- NY 20th Congressional District Projection on Obama
- On Obama, taxes, deficit and freedom
- How Did Obama Get Voted In?
- 30,000 Gun Deaths per year!
- Creationism vs. Evolution
- Great response to a Gun Control article