This is my Christmas wish list for the U.S. Yep, I know I am wishing hard on some of these things, but, if you're gonna wish, wish big, right?
1) There should be a legally mandated balanced budget every year.
Oh yeah. Amend the Constitution, tell those folks that they CANNOT spend more than they bring in. Period. Not only that, but there should be no new spending until "old" spending issues are resolved. Yes, this still leaves the issue of Congress feeling they need to raise taxes all the time to get the new money to equal out increased budgets. I'm not perfect , but it's gotta be a start.
Personally, I am all in favor of replacing the current tax system with a national sales tax in addition to mandated balanced budget. They can make likely more money this way while still being charged to spend less.
2) There should be more "hand up" projects than there are "hand out" projects.
No, I am not suggesting that new projects be created when some of the existing hand out projects could easily be amended. Far too much money gets spent on giving food and resources to people instead of encouraging them to get it for themselves.
I suggest that the government should expand small business training and investment to help people become self sufficient instead of being suspended in a stagnant job market. More money is generated by small business than by individuals.
3) Change give away programs to "fishing pole" programs.
Instead of giving people money for clothes, food and whatnot, help them to get sewing machines and tools instead. Get classes out there to teach sewing and other skills that promote self sufficiency instead of promoting end product consumerism. Not only will it allow people to get more for their dollar spent, it will teach them skills that might be applied in the marketplace.
Plus, these tools and classes can be "paid for" by the things produced by the recipients in training. Sewing class and sewing machine recipients can pay for it by making things that can be used in other areas. Saving money in government spending elsewhere. I mention sewing a lot here, but this can be applied to most any skill set that can be taught and provisioned for.
Now honestly, these things probably should be done at the state level. However I know and you know, there are folks that will make sure the federal government is spending money on these things. We might as well turn that spending into something useful, right?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wikileaks, freedom fighters or greedy opportunists?
The discussion about WikiLeaks has been polarizing.
Many are calling Assange and his website heroes while others call them shameless crooks.
Personally, I don't think it is a matter of whether the U.S. government was rude or polite or secretive, etc.. in their files. I am certainly not the person to defend unscrupulous behavior on the governments part. That's another story entirely.
The point of this is that the documents were stolen. They were knowingly and intentionally stolen. After being stolen, they were given to a group who had something to gain by making the information public. What to gain, for a wanna be "journalist"? That is reputation.
As with any stolen items, if a thief steals something then turns it over to a "fence" or someone else to sell or use it for gain, the 'fence' is just as criminal as the theif for knowingly and willingly using the stolen goods for gain.
That's what it boils down to for me.
You can argue semantics and argue philosophy and you can even argue intention. The point is, if Assange and WikiLeaks were true "journalists" as they would have us beleive, they would have refused the stolen information and mounted a legitimate investigation of their own, knowing something was to be found.
They didn't do that though. They took what they knew was ill-gotten and ran with it to benefit in terms of profit (money taken in from advertising and begging for donations from like-minded people increases in such circumstances) and reputational gain (again among like-minded people who don't care how it happens, just as long as it does. Even though they seem to be the first to complain when the same tactics are used against them.)
I find Wiki-Leaks and Assange guilty of dealing in stolen property and lacking journalistic integrity.
They deserve what they get.
Many are calling Assange and his website heroes while others call them shameless crooks.
Personally, I don't think it is a matter of whether the U.S. government was rude or polite or secretive, etc.. in their files. I am certainly not the person to defend unscrupulous behavior on the governments part. That's another story entirely.
The point of this is that the documents were stolen. They were knowingly and intentionally stolen. After being stolen, they were given to a group who had something to gain by making the information public. What to gain, for a wanna be "journalist"? That is reputation.
As with any stolen items, if a thief steals something then turns it over to a "fence" or someone else to sell or use it for gain, the 'fence' is just as criminal as the theif for knowingly and willingly using the stolen goods for gain.
That's what it boils down to for me.
You can argue semantics and argue philosophy and you can even argue intention. The point is, if Assange and WikiLeaks were true "journalists" as they would have us beleive, they would have refused the stolen information and mounted a legitimate investigation of their own, knowing something was to be found.
They didn't do that though. They took what they knew was ill-gotten and ran with it to benefit in terms of profit (money taken in from advertising and begging for donations from like-minded people increases in such circumstances) and reputational gain (again among like-minded people who don't care how it happens, just as long as it does. Even though they seem to be the first to complain when the same tactics are used against them.)
I find Wiki-Leaks and Assange guilty of dealing in stolen property and lacking journalistic integrity.
They deserve what they get.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
On Making Laws for Specific People
There are a number of local ordinances, state and federal laws that people are suggesting changes and additions for to address particular groups of people.
Be it to allow gays to get married or gays to have their "significant others" as beneficiaries, or gays to be allowed publicly in the military or modifying existing anti-discrimination laws to specifically "protect" gays and others.
Personally, I will go on the record saying this. I don't care about gays enough to worry about what they do. For that matter, I don't care about straights enough to care what they do.
I am never going to buy into the notion that being gay is a biologically 'natural' condition. Yes, some people might be "born that way", but a lot of people are born with Down's Syndrome too.
Just because it happens doesn't mean it is "normal".
Back to not caring about gays or straights. I care about people. Period. I don't care about whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, straight, gays, mixed. Just people.
Why make an exclusion to a law that says only married people can have their spouse of the opposite sex can be a beneficiary of benefits or can be recognized as the person who can pull the plug, etc... just for gays? Why not for anyone the patient or primary person wants to have in that position?
I can think of several situations in which a guy might choose another guy to be a insurance beneficiary and they not be gay. Same goes for women.
The other person could be a best friend and they don't have many people they trust in their lives.
It could be a nephew or niece and they have no closer family or people they would consider an heir or a friend or family.
There is no reason to single out gays to receive these recognitions.
Why not just change the law that a person can identify anyone of their choice, be it male or female, to be a beneficiary or make those decisions on that persons behalf?
Then everyone is helped, whether they are gay or lesbian or straight or whatever. As a matter of fact, it trivializes the matter of sexual preference to the non-issue it should be.
I am opposed to making laws or rules on behalf of sexual preferences or identifications. If we are going to make laws, they need to be based on human needs, people in general needs.
Be it to allow gays to get married or gays to have their "significant others" as beneficiaries, or gays to be allowed publicly in the military or modifying existing anti-discrimination laws to specifically "protect" gays and others.
Personally, I will go on the record saying this. I don't care about gays enough to worry about what they do. For that matter, I don't care about straights enough to care what they do.
I am never going to buy into the notion that being gay is a biologically 'natural' condition. Yes, some people might be "born that way", but a lot of people are born with Down's Syndrome too.
Just because it happens doesn't mean it is "normal".
Back to not caring about gays or straights. I care about people. Period. I don't care about whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, straight, gays, mixed. Just people.
Why make an exclusion to a law that says only married people can have their spouse of the opposite sex can be a beneficiary of benefits or can be recognized as the person who can pull the plug, etc... just for gays? Why not for anyone the patient or primary person wants to have in that position?
I can think of several situations in which a guy might choose another guy to be a insurance beneficiary and they not be gay. Same goes for women.
The other person could be a best friend and they don't have many people they trust in their lives.
It could be a nephew or niece and they have no closer family or people they would consider an heir or a friend or family.
There is no reason to single out gays to receive these recognitions.
Why not just change the law that a person can identify anyone of their choice, be it male or female, to be a beneficiary or make those decisions on that persons behalf?
Then everyone is helped, whether they are gay or lesbian or straight or whatever. As a matter of fact, it trivializes the matter of sexual preference to the non-issue it should be.
I am opposed to making laws or rules on behalf of sexual preferences or identifications. If we are going to make laws, they need to be based on human needs, people in general needs.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Science and Politics
It keeps coming up "Big Science" prefers Democrat controlled government. Mostly because they think democrats will spend more money on science.
Many big pharmaceutical companies and chem companies, NASA and others donate millions of dollars to political candidates and parties.
When asked why they prefer democrat controlled government, the answer usually boils down to 2 things;
Money. Democrats are well known for having more willingness to spend money expand budgets, etc...
The perception that Republicans are more religion based in their thinking and that gets in the way of several scientific endeavors, like stem cell research.
I'm not going to go too far into whether Republicans are more religious than Democrats or not. I'm not going to get into whether science and religion are as diametrically opposed as people make them out to be either.
I am going to say that having someone tell you that just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should do it, is anathema to many scientists.
They don't like being told there are lines we shouldn't cross.
They want to "know the truth" they say. Damn the consequences.
Responsibility and accountability often take a backseat to enthusiasm and determination in many so-called "scientists" way of thinking.
These scientists are the same who suggest that the "scientific" studies that were done on humans in Hitler's death camps are in some ways 'justifiable' based on what information was learned from those atrocities.
Of course, in public, these folks will never say that aloud. In the backrooms and conference labs however, I have heard actual squeals of excitement over things learned from diabolical endeavors that wouldn't ever be allowed by a supposed moral and ethical society.
Even "Big Science" needs a check and balance. It requires it's own Jiminy Cricket to sit on it's shoulder telling it when to draw the line and respect that line.
Science without a conscience is nothing more than a serial killer who fancies himself a scholar by doing experiments on his victims.
Many big pharmaceutical companies and chem companies, NASA and others donate millions of dollars to political candidates and parties.
When asked why they prefer democrat controlled government, the answer usually boils down to 2 things;
Money. Democrats are well known for having more willingness to spend money expand budgets, etc...
The perception that Republicans are more religion based in their thinking and that gets in the way of several scientific endeavors, like stem cell research.
I'm not going to go too far into whether Republicans are more religious than Democrats or not. I'm not going to get into whether science and religion are as diametrically opposed as people make them out to be either.
I am going to say that having someone tell you that just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should do it, is anathema to many scientists.
They don't like being told there are lines we shouldn't cross.
They want to "know the truth" they say. Damn the consequences.
Responsibility and accountability often take a backseat to enthusiasm and determination in many so-called "scientists" way of thinking.
These scientists are the same who suggest that the "scientific" studies that were done on humans in Hitler's death camps are in some ways 'justifiable' based on what information was learned from those atrocities.
Of course, in public, these folks will never say that aloud. In the backrooms and conference labs however, I have heard actual squeals of excitement over things learned from diabolical endeavors that wouldn't ever be allowed by a supposed moral and ethical society.
Even "Big Science" needs a check and balance. It requires it's own Jiminy Cricket to sit on it's shoulder telling it when to draw the line and respect that line.
Science without a conscience is nothing more than a serial killer who fancies himself a scholar by doing experiments on his victims.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Born to be an American family
My grandparents, well over 80 or 90 years ago now, were born in America as a result of their parents, my great-grandparents, coming from Mexico trying to make a better life.
They didn't come here to make money to send back to Mexico. They didn't come here to have kids that would "anchor" them here".
They came to make a life and had kids in the process of living, Like most of us do.
When my grandparents,when asked about what nationality they were, would automatically reply, "American".
They had to work their entire lives in farm fields, packing houses and as hospital house cleaning to make their living, but they did it.
They grew up in small mid-western towns, not being allowed in some restaurants. Enduring the same forced segregation as any one else in the south. Stores and movie theatres with bathrooms and drinking fountains that had signs. one for white people, the other for everyone else.
My grandfather was beaten in the street to the point of hospitalization simply because he looked too "Mexican" to a couple of drunken "Americans" who came across him on their way from a bar.
To the day he died, he never claimed to be anything but an American.
All of my grandparents grew up speaking Spanish. Their parents insisted that they learn to speak English though. That's what Americans do, they speak English.
My grandparents were born Americans to people who came to America without "legal" paperwork. Of course, this was back over around 90 years ago or so and the immigration laws were not the same as they are now.
They grew up, never getting much past the third and fourth grades in school because times were so hard that their families depended on them to help make ends meet at home.
They made sure though that their kids at least got to high school, more than they had accomplished.
I was the first one on that side of my family to get a post high school education.
Because of the example of my grandparents, I take great pride in being an American.
Being an American means having opportunities. To go from people living as migratory farm workers with little to no schooling to being a homeowner and small business owner with a post high school education in three generations.
Talk about incredible opportunities. It hasn't been easy or just given up. WE have had to work hard, scratching for every bit of it as we went along. Always being there to help each other when we could.
My grandparents were perfect examples of giving others a hand up, not just a hand out. If they helped you, it was because you earned it. I expect to be the same way with my kids and grandkids when the day comes.
My family was born to be American. We believe that you get what you make. Earning what you get instead of taking it like a common thief. We have expectations of ourselves and others.
They didn't come here to make money to send back to Mexico. They didn't come here to have kids that would "anchor" them here".
They came to make a life and had kids in the process of living, Like most of us do.
When my grandparents,when asked about what nationality they were, would automatically reply, "American".
They had to work their entire lives in farm fields, packing houses and as hospital house cleaning to make their living, but they did it.
They grew up in small mid-western towns, not being allowed in some restaurants. Enduring the same forced segregation as any one else in the south. Stores and movie theatres with bathrooms and drinking fountains that had signs. one for white people, the other for everyone else.
My grandfather was beaten in the street to the point of hospitalization simply because he looked too "Mexican" to a couple of drunken "Americans" who came across him on their way from a bar.
To the day he died, he never claimed to be anything but an American.
All of my grandparents grew up speaking Spanish. Their parents insisted that they learn to speak English though. That's what Americans do, they speak English.
My grandparents were born Americans to people who came to America without "legal" paperwork. Of course, this was back over around 90 years ago or so and the immigration laws were not the same as they are now.
They grew up, never getting much past the third and fourth grades in school because times were so hard that their families depended on them to help make ends meet at home.
They made sure though that their kids at least got to high school, more than they had accomplished.
I was the first one on that side of my family to get a post high school education.
Because of the example of my grandparents, I take great pride in being an American.
Being an American means having opportunities. To go from people living as migratory farm workers with little to no schooling to being a homeowner and small business owner with a post high school education in three generations.
Talk about incredible opportunities. It hasn't been easy or just given up. WE have had to work hard, scratching for every bit of it as we went along. Always being there to help each other when we could.
My grandparents were perfect examples of giving others a hand up, not just a hand out. If they helped you, it was because you earned it. I expect to be the same way with my kids and grandkids when the day comes.
My family was born to be American. We believe that you get what you make. Earning what you get instead of taking it like a common thief. We have expectations of ourselves and others.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Individual rights versus personal choices
A little black girl isn't 'comfortable' with her hair. so daddy had a new muppett made to run around on Sesame Street to show everyone that it's ok for little black girls to have different hair.
Some cross dressers and halfway done transsexuals don't feel comfortable with using either the men's or womens' bathrooms in public places, so they want the government to force businesses to build 'unisex' bathrooms to make them more comfortable.
People from other countries who don't speak English aren't comfortable taking drivers license tests in English. So, many cities offer the testing in Spanish and other languages now. Forget that the traffic signs and street signs are all in English anyway.
I realize this is America. Individualism is supposed to be recognized and respected. However, I think we are taking things a bit too far anymore with demanding that everyone needs to conform to one particular persons or specific groups wants or comfort levels.
One city is considering changing their local discrimination law to include discrimination against gay, trans-gender and cross dressing persons.
What?
You know, I run my own business. I pay for everything in terms of materials, supplies, equipment, advertising, everything. I put all my time, effort and energy into my business and I have ways that I want my business run. I have my own ideas of how my business is represented to the public.
If Joe Somebody wants to wear women's clothes in his own time, that's fine. Knock yourself out. If he wants to wear women's clothes at work, then he better think again if he works at my business.
If he wants to wear women's clothes while he does the type of work he would do for me, then perhaps he should start his own business, like I did, to do things the way he wants things to be done. Like I did.
Men in women's clothes, women in men's clothes, men wanting to be women, women wanting to be men, and everything else associated with all that, is personal. Things you do on you own time, in your own place.
If you want to be a woman walking down the street dressed like a guy, be my guest. I am telling you right now people, you are free to express yourself, we have laws already existing that protect that.
However, people need to stop trying to force acceptance of their individual choices on others. I have a right to my own opinion and I can like or not like, agree or disagree, with anything I choose. Just as you have the right to do and think as you choose, for the most part.
No, I do not "need" to accept or approve of anyone's chosen lifestyle or personal issues. Trying to force me to have to accept your fetish for the other genders clothes and behavior is tantamount to telling me I am not free to express my own opinions or values anymore in deference to yours.
Should I fire someone just because they like to dress up or engage in relations in a way different than I? Of course not, as long as it's on your own time. When you are working for me, you are on my time, representing my business.
If you come to work in a way that I don't think helps my business or is distracting and to the other workers or is not what I think represents my business the way I intend my business to be represented, I should have every right to run my business as I see fit and ask you to leave or terminate your employment. I don't run my business to you can make your personal whims public.
I also have the right, or should, to hire who I decide will best work and represent my business, not who the gov't tells me they want me to hire. If the gov't wants that person to have a job, they should hire them.
I speak English and can speak enough Spanish to get by. I often listen to Mexican music, in Spanish, at home, in my car, wherever I am, on my own time. When I am working for someone else and I can listen to music, I ask if playing my Mexican music is ok at work. If it is great, if not, I respect that. It's not my company, I just work there.
I don't impose my personal choices and preferences on others in a place that's not mine. I also know where I live and work. If I take on a job over in Iitaly, I would fully expect them to expect me to speak italian over there. After all, Iam in Italy, not the U.S. or even Engalnd where English is the priamry language.
I don't expect to walk into China and demand that they give me a drivers license test in English knowing that the traffic signs and all other public communication is in Chinese. That would be stupid and rude of me.
Individual rights and freedoms are NOT the same thing as individual wants and wishes.
People and the government are getting them confused and it needs to stop.
Some cross dressers and halfway done transsexuals don't feel comfortable with using either the men's or womens' bathrooms in public places, so they want the government to force businesses to build 'unisex' bathrooms to make them more comfortable.
People from other countries who don't speak English aren't comfortable taking drivers license tests in English. So, many cities offer the testing in Spanish and other languages now. Forget that the traffic signs and street signs are all in English anyway.
I realize this is America. Individualism is supposed to be recognized and respected. However, I think we are taking things a bit too far anymore with demanding that everyone needs to conform to one particular persons or specific groups wants or comfort levels.
One city is considering changing their local discrimination law to include discrimination against gay, trans-gender and cross dressing persons.
What?
You know, I run my own business. I pay for everything in terms of materials, supplies, equipment, advertising, everything. I put all my time, effort and energy into my business and I have ways that I want my business run. I have my own ideas of how my business is represented to the public.
If Joe Somebody wants to wear women's clothes in his own time, that's fine. Knock yourself out. If he wants to wear women's clothes at work, then he better think again if he works at my business.
If he wants to wear women's clothes while he does the type of work he would do for me, then perhaps he should start his own business, like I did, to do things the way he wants things to be done. Like I did.
Men in women's clothes, women in men's clothes, men wanting to be women, women wanting to be men, and everything else associated with all that, is personal. Things you do on you own time, in your own place.
If you want to be a woman walking down the street dressed like a guy, be my guest. I am telling you right now people, you are free to express yourself, we have laws already existing that protect that.
However, people need to stop trying to force acceptance of their individual choices on others. I have a right to my own opinion and I can like or not like, agree or disagree, with anything I choose. Just as you have the right to do and think as you choose, for the most part.
No, I do not "need" to accept or approve of anyone's chosen lifestyle or personal issues. Trying to force me to have to accept your fetish for the other genders clothes and behavior is tantamount to telling me I am not free to express my own opinions or values anymore in deference to yours.
Should I fire someone just because they like to dress up or engage in relations in a way different than I? Of course not, as long as it's on your own time. When you are working for me, you are on my time, representing my business.
If you come to work in a way that I don't think helps my business or is distracting and to the other workers or is not what I think represents my business the way I intend my business to be represented, I should have every right to run my business as I see fit and ask you to leave or terminate your employment. I don't run my business to you can make your personal whims public.
I also have the right, or should, to hire who I decide will best work and represent my business, not who the gov't tells me they want me to hire. If the gov't wants that person to have a job, they should hire them.
I speak English and can speak enough Spanish to get by. I often listen to Mexican music, in Spanish, at home, in my car, wherever I am, on my own time. When I am working for someone else and I can listen to music, I ask if playing my Mexican music is ok at work. If it is great, if not, I respect that. It's not my company, I just work there.
I don't impose my personal choices and preferences on others in a place that's not mine. I also know where I live and work. If I take on a job over in Iitaly, I would fully expect them to expect me to speak italian over there. After all, Iam in Italy, not the U.S. or even Engalnd where English is the priamry language.
I don't expect to walk into China and demand that they give me a drivers license test in English knowing that the traffic signs and all other public communication is in Chinese. That would be stupid and rude of me.
Individual rights and freedoms are NOT the same thing as individual wants and wishes.
People and the government are getting them confused and it needs to stop.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Riding on a hijacked bus
Here we all are, passengers trying to get to the places in our lives we are trying to go on a bus called America.
We have to hire a new bus driver and bus management company every so often to maintain the bus and keep schedules, etc...
There happen to be at least two unions that represent bus employees.
One union that wants to give bus rides for free to everyone, but they want to tell you how to route your trip and where you should go as well.
The other union says you should go where you want to go but everyone has to pay their own way. They also want to keep the bus fare costs high so that only those who can afford the ride can get on the bus.
They both think that some of the riders should be given special privileges along the way with the privileges coming out of the bus fares of everyone else. One of them thinks the special privileges should go to those who could barely afford the bus fare, the other thinks the privileges should go to those who who give the biggest tips.
Many of the bus riders don't want to hire from the union pools at all.
Some of the riders want to hire employees who have their own plans for the bus company and just do the best job of getting everyone to their destinations with the same privileges and bus fares that will meet the needs of the bus maintenance, etc.. yet keep in mind the money comes from and belongs to those who pay the bus fares.
Obviously, a lot of the bus riders want to get those special perks and privileges while on the bus and so for the whole ride, there is nothing but arguing on the bus as to which union to hire from or not hire from in the case of those wanting non-union employees.
Of course, when the bus company was first put together by those who were to be it's first riders, they made a list of rules that applied to everyone equally so to keep everything going smoothly.
Neither of the unions wants to pay much attention to that list anymore as they say and do just about anything to get people to keep hiring from their union halls.
Now, in today's world, so many years after the bus company was first put together, the unions are more like gangs. They don't compromise, they make threats and constantly try to undermine each other instead of trying to be better at the jobs.
They have become hijackers of the bus and bus company, trying now to use propaganda and rhetoric to sway bus riders to their cause.
It's high time the bus riders, ALL of the bus riders, got together and fired both of these unions, never to hire from either of them again. instead hiring only those who stand on their own principles and abilities, promising to do their best for all the bus riders, not just those who take their side.
We have to hire a new bus driver and bus management company every so often to maintain the bus and keep schedules, etc...
There happen to be at least two unions that represent bus employees.
One union that wants to give bus rides for free to everyone, but they want to tell you how to route your trip and where you should go as well.
The other union says you should go where you want to go but everyone has to pay their own way. They also want to keep the bus fare costs high so that only those who can afford the ride can get on the bus.
They both think that some of the riders should be given special privileges along the way with the privileges coming out of the bus fares of everyone else. One of them thinks the special privileges should go to those who could barely afford the bus fare, the other thinks the privileges should go to those who who give the biggest tips.
Many of the bus riders don't want to hire from the union pools at all.
Some of the riders want to hire employees who have their own plans for the bus company and just do the best job of getting everyone to their destinations with the same privileges and bus fares that will meet the needs of the bus maintenance, etc.. yet keep in mind the money comes from and belongs to those who pay the bus fares.
Obviously, a lot of the bus riders want to get those special perks and privileges while on the bus and so for the whole ride, there is nothing but arguing on the bus as to which union to hire from or not hire from in the case of those wanting non-union employees.
Of course, when the bus company was first put together by those who were to be it's first riders, they made a list of rules that applied to everyone equally so to keep everything going smoothly.
Neither of the unions wants to pay much attention to that list anymore as they say and do just about anything to get people to keep hiring from their union halls.
Now, in today's world, so many years after the bus company was first put together, the unions are more like gangs. They don't compromise, they make threats and constantly try to undermine each other instead of trying to be better at the jobs.
They have become hijackers of the bus and bus company, trying now to use propaganda and rhetoric to sway bus riders to their cause.
It's high time the bus riders, ALL of the bus riders, got together and fired both of these unions, never to hire from either of them again. instead hiring only those who stand on their own principles and abilities, promising to do their best for all the bus riders, not just those who take their side.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
When the government spies on it's own people
It's bad enough that the FBI, CIA and other 'law enforcement' and 'intelligence' agencies turn their attention to American citizens.
Local law enforcement is also using technology and spying on their own constituents as well.
From street light cameras to parking lot cameras and now internet technology like Google Earth.
It's all seemingly innocuous, so they would have have you believe.
The biggest 'protections' American citizens have is that we cannot incriminate ourselves. We are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy. We are presumed innocent until "proven" guilty.
People have taken measures to ensure their privacy, such as building privacy fences. This is to have privacy when they want to work or play on their own private property, swim, sunbathe, etc...
When you put a privacy fence up, you are declaring to those around you that prying eyes are not appreciated AND that you are trying to be considerate of passersby and neighbors sensibilities and show off your private activities for all to see.
It is a responsible thing to do and should be respected.
Still, people will take steps to invade that privacy, such as trying to find or create holes to see through, climbing up and looking over the top, using a camera from a higher level of a neighboring building, with telephoto lenses, etc..
These most often are, and should be, punished by courts because they are blatant examples of deliberately invading others privacy.
What about when the local government uses a satellite image to investigate residents private property intentionally looking for things they can fine and ticket residents for?
Isn't that the same as someone peering over the top of a fence or peering down from a nearby balcony?
It's very easy to hide behind the excuse of 'protecting' people from themselves and others.
The problem is that people really don't need that much protecting. Especially when it comes to using invasive methods and technologies to acquire information.
Local law enforcement is also using technology and spying on their own constituents as well.
From street light cameras to parking lot cameras and now internet technology like Google Earth.
It's all seemingly innocuous, so they would have have you believe.
The biggest 'protections' American citizens have is that we cannot incriminate ourselves. We are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy. We are presumed innocent until "proven" guilty.
People have taken measures to ensure their privacy, such as building privacy fences. This is to have privacy when they want to work or play on their own private property, swim, sunbathe, etc...
When you put a privacy fence up, you are declaring to those around you that prying eyes are not appreciated AND that you are trying to be considerate of passersby and neighbors sensibilities and show off your private activities for all to see.
It is a responsible thing to do and should be respected.
Still, people will take steps to invade that privacy, such as trying to find or create holes to see through, climbing up and looking over the top, using a camera from a higher level of a neighboring building, with telephoto lenses, etc..
These most often are, and should be, punished by courts because they are blatant examples of deliberately invading others privacy.
What about when the local government uses a satellite image to investigate residents private property intentionally looking for things they can fine and ticket residents for?
Isn't that the same as someone peering over the top of a fence or peering down from a nearby balcony?
It's very easy to hide behind the excuse of 'protecting' people from themselves and others.
The problem is that people really don't need that much protecting. Especially when it comes to using invasive methods and technologies to acquire information.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Dividing States Rights from Federal Obligation
The Obama administration still complains that the Arizona law on immigration and other localities passing similar laws are violating or obstructing the federal governments ability to do their job of managing immigration.
What happens when the federal government gives itself the responsibility to do a job, taking said job out of the states hands, but then fails to do that job in a satisfactory or successful manner?
It's not just the Obama administration, the federal government has been laying down on the job for years, through several administrations and parties supposedly being 'in charge'. They have failed miserably. Yet they still insist that states not take on the task themselves.
It's interesting how the federal government can have drug enforcement concerns, automobile highway safety concerns, public health concerns and force those issues onto the states as un-funded and state enforced mandates.
On the issue of immigration however, even though they haven't been getting it done, they want to insist on taking on all of this issue. "Sorry states, get out of our way so we can be tied up in partisan hacking please."
Democrat Obama stands on his soapbox and points his finger at republicans calling them out for playing partisan games, yet playing those same partisan games himself like a pro, not taking any responsibility for himself or democrats partisan obstruction and diversion.
Truth be told, neither party has any business pointing at anyone other than themselves. Both parties are equally as guilty in regards to hijacking the government and catering to party interests rather than the interests of all Americans, regardless of political party identification.
I hold Obama, the Democrat and Republican parties in contempt of the American people and the United States of America. (somehow, the 'United States" part of that they still aren't getting).
Obama and the rest of the obstructive and obtuse politicians, step out of the way of the states who actually intend on doing something about the issue and how it affects those states instead of blathering and standing in the way.
What happens when the federal government gives itself the responsibility to do a job, taking said job out of the states hands, but then fails to do that job in a satisfactory or successful manner?
It's not just the Obama administration, the federal government has been laying down on the job for years, through several administrations and parties supposedly being 'in charge'. They have failed miserably. Yet they still insist that states not take on the task themselves.
It's interesting how the federal government can have drug enforcement concerns, automobile highway safety concerns, public health concerns and force those issues onto the states as un-funded and state enforced mandates.
On the issue of immigration however, even though they haven't been getting it done, they want to insist on taking on all of this issue. "Sorry states, get out of our way so we can be tied up in partisan hacking please."
Democrat Obama stands on his soapbox and points his finger at republicans calling them out for playing partisan games, yet playing those same partisan games himself like a pro, not taking any responsibility for himself or democrats partisan obstruction and diversion.
Truth be told, neither party has any business pointing at anyone other than themselves. Both parties are equally as guilty in regards to hijacking the government and catering to party interests rather than the interests of all Americans, regardless of political party identification.
I hold Obama, the Democrat and Republican parties in contempt of the American people and the United States of America. (somehow, the 'United States" part of that they still aren't getting).
Obama and the rest of the obstructive and obtuse politicians, step out of the way of the states who actually intend on doing something about the issue and how it affects those states instead of blathering and standing in the way.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
American Expectations
What do we expect from each other as Americans?
Should we have expectations of others? The Constitution says we should.
As Americans, we expect to have others respect our rights and freedoms as we are expected to respect them for other Americans.
What does that mean though, in day to day life?
It means that we should mind our own business, make sure we are getting our own lives taken care of before we go looking at someone elses life.
That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye from our neighbors when they are in danger, only that we need to make sure we are doing the best we can with our own lives before turning to others.
It means we should expect to stand together to defend these rights and freedoms EVERY TIME an American is at risk of having those rights violated. We are only guaranteed these rights and freedoms so long as we are willing to make sure all Americans have them.
I expect Americans to remember that our rights stop where the next persons start. Just because I have the right to pursue happiness, doesn't mean I have the right to deprive you of your right to life or liberty. I expect Americans to respect that just as they want me to respect it when it is turned in their direction.
As Americans, the Constitution isn't just some super document, it is a reflection of us. It is only as strong as we are willing to support it. When we decide that the rights and freedoms in the Constitution are only for certain people and that others are to be denied due to class, race, education, gender, political ideas, etc... then the Constitution is meaningless.
I expect other Americans to stand up and fight for the Constitution. To remember all the people who struggled, fought and died to make it a Constitution for ALL Americans. It has been a long, ugly, bloody path we as Americans have traveled to see that All Americans are protected by the Constitution. We have seen rascism, civil war, classism, attacks from within by those who would over throw the Constitution only to gain power for a group of people instead of all people.
We must expect each other to remember the ugly times in this country's past to keep working and ensure that those obstacles are not laid on any Americans, all Americans, ever again.
I have lived my life enjoying the rights and freedoms the Constitution provides. I will do whatever I must to make sure my children, and your children, have the same opportunity, even if it means I must fight or die.
I expect the same from every other American. You can expect it from me.
Should we have expectations of others? The Constitution says we should.
As Americans, we expect to have others respect our rights and freedoms as we are expected to respect them for other Americans.
What does that mean though, in day to day life?
It means that we should mind our own business, make sure we are getting our own lives taken care of before we go looking at someone elses life.
That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye from our neighbors when they are in danger, only that we need to make sure we are doing the best we can with our own lives before turning to others.
It means we should expect to stand together to defend these rights and freedoms EVERY TIME an American is at risk of having those rights violated. We are only guaranteed these rights and freedoms so long as we are willing to make sure all Americans have them.
I expect Americans to remember that our rights stop where the next persons start. Just because I have the right to pursue happiness, doesn't mean I have the right to deprive you of your right to life or liberty. I expect Americans to respect that just as they want me to respect it when it is turned in their direction.
As Americans, the Constitution isn't just some super document, it is a reflection of us. It is only as strong as we are willing to support it. When we decide that the rights and freedoms in the Constitution are only for certain people and that others are to be denied due to class, race, education, gender, political ideas, etc... then the Constitution is meaningless.
I expect other Americans to stand up and fight for the Constitution. To remember all the people who struggled, fought and died to make it a Constitution for ALL Americans. It has been a long, ugly, bloody path we as Americans have traveled to see that All Americans are protected by the Constitution. We have seen rascism, civil war, classism, attacks from within by those who would over throw the Constitution only to gain power for a group of people instead of all people.
We must expect each other to remember the ugly times in this country's past to keep working and ensure that those obstacles are not laid on any Americans, all Americans, ever again.
I have lived my life enjoying the rights and freedoms the Constitution provides. I will do whatever I must to make sure my children, and your children, have the same opportunity, even if it means I must fight or die.
I expect the same from every other American. You can expect it from me.
Friday, June 4, 2010
A Representative Republic
There are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between a "Democracy" and a "Representative Republic" because of the use of democratic elections.
At face value, "democracy" is popular vote. What the majority votes for in a list of choices, wins.
However, in a 'representative republic', people who have been elected to represent the peoples interests make those decisions via popular vote.
Both the left and right activists get it wrong. They assume because they are elected to represent the interests of the people, that means they are to look out for the 'best interests' like a nanny, making decisions which may disregard popular opinion, is what the nannies think is 'best' for the kiddies.
This is not correct either.
Elected representatives are granted time throughout the yer to go back to their state to touch base with the population they represent. This is meant to get a better idea of what the people in their state want done. Not to see what they think people need done.
This is where party politics has failed the American voters. The two dominating parties have assumed that they are in a position to tell the voters what is best for them instead of investigating and going back to Congress with their marching orders from the voters.
Remember, every elected representative, from congress people to senators to the president are public servants. Not literally implying that they are well dressed butlers, but they have an obligation to do what they are directed to do by the larger public.
When we say we need 'leaders' in government, we mean we need people who will stand up and fight for who they represent against those who would impose upon the interests of the citizens. These 'leaders' need to fight and find ways to make those things happen, to do those things the voters want done.
We send one or a few of our own from each state to represent our positions among the other states, instead of trying to conduct an over-sized mass public vote on every issue. That would be 'democracy'.
We just need to remind those representatives who they work for and not who they think they are lording over.
At face value, "democracy" is popular vote. What the majority votes for in a list of choices, wins.
However, in a 'representative republic', people who have been elected to represent the peoples interests make those decisions via popular vote.
Both the left and right activists get it wrong. They assume because they are elected to represent the interests of the people, that means they are to look out for the 'best interests' like a nanny, making decisions which may disregard popular opinion, is what the nannies think is 'best' for the kiddies.
This is not correct either.
Elected representatives are granted time throughout the yer to go back to their state to touch base with the population they represent. This is meant to get a better idea of what the people in their state want done. Not to see what they think people need done.
This is where party politics has failed the American voters. The two dominating parties have assumed that they are in a position to tell the voters what is best for them instead of investigating and going back to Congress with their marching orders from the voters.
Remember, every elected representative, from congress people to senators to the president are public servants. Not literally implying that they are well dressed butlers, but they have an obligation to do what they are directed to do by the larger public.
When we say we need 'leaders' in government, we mean we need people who will stand up and fight for who they represent against those who would impose upon the interests of the citizens. These 'leaders' need to fight and find ways to make those things happen, to do those things the voters want done.
We send one or a few of our own from each state to represent our positions among the other states, instead of trying to conduct an over-sized mass public vote on every issue. That would be 'democracy'.
We just need to remind those representatives who they work for and not who they think they are lording over.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
How the U.S. Can Improve Legal Immigration
First off, it is ridiculous to criminalize just showing up at the border. Crossing it illegally is one thing, but people should be able to arrive at a 'processing station' without fear.
What is a processing station? Instead of just putting up more and more fences and sending more and more guards, they should strategically place small buildings at points known as high traffic entry points. At those points, people seeking to enter can be in a 'safe zone' they are not in the country illegally, but are not just wandering around either.
These processing stations can allow people to apply for legal entry and be staffed by agents with authority to do background checks, make contact with trustworthy employers seeing if there is legal work available for such immigrant workers, offer a resting place, bathroom to clean up, water, etc...
They can still turn people away, but they can be more humane about the conditions undr which these encounters happen.
These border guards can pick up people trying to sneak through and take them to the closest processing station to go through the system like everyone else.
Having these processing stations right on the border, people can still have hope of getting in to better their lives, they can know they don't have to die of exposure to the elements to get there and they don't have to be branded as a criminal just for trying.
The U.S. benefits by having better security, a more controlled and better managed entry system and continues to be a beacon of hope.
Will the government do this? Not likely. It's one thing to talk about making things better, but actually doing it isn't what most politicians are about.
What is a processing station? Instead of just putting up more and more fences and sending more and more guards, they should strategically place small buildings at points known as high traffic entry points. At those points, people seeking to enter can be in a 'safe zone' they are not in the country illegally, but are not just wandering around either.
These processing stations can allow people to apply for legal entry and be staffed by agents with authority to do background checks, make contact with trustworthy employers seeing if there is legal work available for such immigrant workers, offer a resting place, bathroom to clean up, water, etc...
They can still turn people away, but they can be more humane about the conditions undr which these encounters happen.
These border guards can pick up people trying to sneak through and take them to the closest processing station to go through the system like everyone else.
Having these processing stations right on the border, people can still have hope of getting in to better their lives, they can know they don't have to die of exposure to the elements to get there and they don't have to be branded as a criminal just for trying.
The U.S. benefits by having better security, a more controlled and better managed entry system and continues to be a beacon of hope.
Will the government do this? Not likely. It's one thing to talk about making things better, but actually doing it isn't what most politicians are about.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
States Rights Take Precedent
A lot of noise is being made by politicians about the Arizona law that takes up immigration laws and makes them state laws.
The U.S Constitution is applicable only to those items specifically listed within the document (as well as the Amendments in the Bill of Rights) anything not specifically mentioned within the document falls directly to state discretion. It's actually a pretty cut and dry issue.
Something for those opponents of the Arizona law based on the supposed potential for racial profiling to consider is, in this country, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The President of the United States and others have publicly stated that they are presuming the law enforcement officers in Arizona are to be considered as suspect to racial profiling even though it hasn't happened and the law specifically prohibits and provides punishment for doing so.
Thanks to many congress persons and senators, there are a great many laws that are worded in such a way as that it is possible for nare-do-wells to exploit and otherwise take unfair advantage of said laws. Does that mean the laws are all bad and should be scrapped becasue some few might do something wrong? Or should we demonstrate our faith in the notion of presumed innocent until proven guilty ideal?
The States have the right to make laws to protect their citizens. Period. The U.S President can not agree with it or like it all day long, but he is NOT supporting the unity and cohesion of this country as the UNITED States as long as he deliberately singles out States based on their politics.
Let the process of law be followed. It is assured that the law will be challenged by someone who is taken into custody almost immediately, as is their right, and the courts will have their chance to measure the state law against the U.S. Constitution, as it should.
The President has no business at all interfering and is causing more problems.
The U.S Constitution is applicable only to those items specifically listed within the document (as well as the Amendments in the Bill of Rights) anything not specifically mentioned within the document falls directly to state discretion. It's actually a pretty cut and dry issue.
Something for those opponents of the Arizona law based on the supposed potential for racial profiling to consider is, in this country, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The President of the United States and others have publicly stated that they are presuming the law enforcement officers in Arizona are to be considered as suspect to racial profiling even though it hasn't happened and the law specifically prohibits and provides punishment for doing so.
Thanks to many congress persons and senators, there are a great many laws that are worded in such a way as that it is possible for nare-do-wells to exploit and otherwise take unfair advantage of said laws. Does that mean the laws are all bad and should be scrapped becasue some few might do something wrong? Or should we demonstrate our faith in the notion of presumed innocent until proven guilty ideal?
The States have the right to make laws to protect their citizens. Period. The U.S President can not agree with it or like it all day long, but he is NOT supporting the unity and cohesion of this country as the UNITED States as long as he deliberately singles out States based on their politics.
Let the process of law be followed. It is assured that the law will be challenged by someone who is taken into custody almost immediately, as is their right, and the courts will have their chance to measure the state law against the U.S. Constitution, as it should.
The President has no business at all interfering and is causing more problems.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Two or three parties sir?
Actually, I take mine with none, thank you very much. I would like my government to be the same if I could.
Party systems only guarantee one thing.. that the person elected represents the interests of that party and not the best interests of the whole group.
Recently, Glenn Beck made a comment, likely insincere, that perhaps a third party was in order. of course, it drew out the party hacks from all over who cried that a third party would only split the vote and make it easier for the other party to win.
That's likely possible. However, with no parties, the candidates representing their own agendas and interested in doing the best job on behalf of all citizens would get all the votes he or she needed for a solid win.
Not only should there be no third party, there should be no parties at all, at least in this one citizen's opinion.
In that situation, instead of getting nothing but pointing fingers and arguing over who lies more than the other, political discussions discussions could focus on actual issues, at least ideally.
The time for politics as usual is way past it's freshness date. People want change in the form of leadership and intelligent collaboration.
Party systems only guarantee one thing.. that the person elected represents the interests of that party and not the best interests of the whole group.
Recently, Glenn Beck made a comment, likely insincere, that perhaps a third party was in order. of course, it drew out the party hacks from all over who cried that a third party would only split the vote and make it easier for the other party to win.
That's likely possible. However, with no parties, the candidates representing their own agendas and interested in doing the best job on behalf of all citizens would get all the votes he or she needed for a solid win.
Not only should there be no third party, there should be no parties at all, at least in this one citizen's opinion.
In that situation, instead of getting nothing but pointing fingers and arguing over who lies more than the other, political discussions discussions could focus on actual issues, at least ideally.
The time for politics as usual is way past it's freshness date. People want change in the form of leadership and intelligent collaboration.
Monday, February 8, 2010
On individuals and communities
I like to hear people argue about taxes and how money is spent.
It's good to have people paying attention to how much is being spent and what it's being spent on.
I listen to people complain about services and projects that are funded in their city, state, etc.. that don't do anything for them.
This country is a not just a country of individuals. It is a community. Let's not just look at the European immigrants who provided the Constitution that moved here, let's look at all the people who have lived in this land and how they did it.
Mobility was limited in those times in the absence of motor vehicles. Families typically stayed close to each other. People lived in the towns and villages their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins lived. If they did leave, they didn't usually go too far.
Was limited mobility the only reason people stayed together? I think not, especially in terms of tribal peoples, but also those who lived in towns and cities.
Community is a way of seeing oneself as part of a group. You are not just an individual, you are part of the group as well. People who take care of their needs and help each other when they have the ability and interest to do so.
Back then, the interest was usually familial, or necessity. People felt compelled to be helpful to each other so that their family members they cared about would be taken care of, as those same family members cared for them when they needed it.
Perhaps some one in the community wants to work but can't operate transportation for themselves. They want to keep contributing to the community but find it necessary to ask for help to do it.
Will you deny that one member the opportunity to work and contribute simply because you yourself might never use the assistance that is provided for the other? What if not now, but ten years from now, suddenly you need assistance? Will you suffer because no one wants to help you as you did not want to help others back then?
Of course, back then, technology made day to day life more physically difficult. People worked together and helped each other out because not only was it practical but because they valued everyone in the community. No one was left behind.
Technology has changed things. People are much more independent than before. Families live separated by thousands of miles and neighbors don't know who each other are anymore because technology makes it easy to live in a bubble. To talk to and directly interact primarily with only those we desire to interact with.
Those community values have taken a hit and once lost, it's hard to get them back into the minds of people who have become "me' oriented.
But, we still live together, we still share stores, and schools and common local resources. How will we decide in the future if our community allows some to be left behind?
After all, it's not me, is it?
It's good to have people paying attention to how much is being spent and what it's being spent on.
I listen to people complain about services and projects that are funded in their city, state, etc.. that don't do anything for them.
This country is a not just a country of individuals. It is a community. Let's not just look at the European immigrants who provided the Constitution that moved here, let's look at all the people who have lived in this land and how they did it.
Mobility was limited in those times in the absence of motor vehicles. Families typically stayed close to each other. People lived in the towns and villages their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins lived. If they did leave, they didn't usually go too far.
Was limited mobility the only reason people stayed together? I think not, especially in terms of tribal peoples, but also those who lived in towns and cities.
Community is a way of seeing oneself as part of a group. You are not just an individual, you are part of the group as well. People who take care of their needs and help each other when they have the ability and interest to do so.
Back then, the interest was usually familial, or necessity. People felt compelled to be helpful to each other so that their family members they cared about would be taken care of, as those same family members cared for them when they needed it.
Perhaps some one in the community wants to work but can't operate transportation for themselves. They want to keep contributing to the community but find it necessary to ask for help to do it.
Will you deny that one member the opportunity to work and contribute simply because you yourself might never use the assistance that is provided for the other? What if not now, but ten years from now, suddenly you need assistance? Will you suffer because no one wants to help you as you did not want to help others back then?
Of course, back then, technology made day to day life more physically difficult. People worked together and helped each other out because not only was it practical but because they valued everyone in the community. No one was left behind.
Technology has changed things. People are much more independent than before. Families live separated by thousands of miles and neighbors don't know who each other are anymore because technology makes it easy to live in a bubble. To talk to and directly interact primarily with only those we desire to interact with.
Those community values have taken a hit and once lost, it's hard to get them back into the minds of people who have become "me' oriented.
But, we still live together, we still share stores, and schools and common local resources. How will we decide in the future if our community allows some to be left behind?
After all, it's not me, is it?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
What police are and aren't
It's funny how city police departments, Chiefs and officers think that somehow, they are the only legitimate security citizens need to have.
It's also funny how people think that the police work for them or have the citizens best interests as their primary interests. It's not accurate.
City police departments are employees, usually, of the Mayor's office. Police Chiefs are hired by the Mayor, not elected as County Sheriffs are.
The job of the local police is to enforce local laws, first and foremost. They work for city government, not citizens.
Yes, the mayor is elected by the citizens, but the police are his (or her) security force to enforce the laws of the city. Look at your local city charter, it is spelled out there usually.
Police don't want every day citizens to carry guns, then people are not dependent on them. Hard to just if many of the extra costs for beefing up security if the people don't 'need' it.
Not only that, an armed citizen can defend him or herself from a police officer that is not behaving like a police officer should. Oh no, that never happens right?
If cities want to have their own police force, fine, let them have it, but do not assume that just because the city has their own security force that it is the same as each citizen having the right to bear arms and defend themselves.
I can have respect for individuals who want to take a job as a police officer because they are taking care of their family and doing a job that gets called for serving the cities interests, which sometimes happens to coincide with keeping the city safe as they can by intervening in criminal activities as they are reported.
Police are often called 'first responders, this is because police are just that, responders. They arrive after the fact of a criminal act being reported. They cannot protect each and every individual to prevent or immediately intervene if someone is confronted.
How dare they tell citizens to do nothing but give in to the perpetrators demands and wait till their 'authorities' arrive.
Constitutionally speaking, police have got no say in how I defend myself. The U.S Constitution says I have the right to defend myself, my family and my community. I do, as an individual.
Their police force does not remove or invalidate that right.
The law making and law enforcing agencies in our country need to understand, laws are not to be dictated to the people, but decided upon and shared by the people. Law enforcement is not to assume that everyone is a criminal first, but to respect each and every person who, according to the same Constitution, is innocent, did you hear me? I N N O C E N T UNTIL proven guilty.
That means drop your bad attitudes and conceit and start treating the citizens you are too afraid to get out of your cars and interact with some respect first.
I don't care how much like a fool a person or group of persons is acting like, until they have actually, broken a law and been found guilty, you can take them into custody but you had better keep a civil and respectful mind about you the whole time.
Things aren't always what they seem, as so many of these innocent people who are being released after years of shoddy and lazy police work made them something they are not.
Each individual citizen must not be afraid to stand up and not accept the false information that police departments espouse that they are the only legitimate defense for citizens.
They are not correct.
It's also funny how people think that the police work for them or have the citizens best interests as their primary interests. It's not accurate.
City police departments are employees, usually, of the Mayor's office. Police Chiefs are hired by the Mayor, not elected as County Sheriffs are.
The job of the local police is to enforce local laws, first and foremost. They work for city government, not citizens.
Yes, the mayor is elected by the citizens, but the police are his (or her) security force to enforce the laws of the city. Look at your local city charter, it is spelled out there usually.
Police don't want every day citizens to carry guns, then people are not dependent on them. Hard to just if many of the extra costs for beefing up security if the people don't 'need' it.
Not only that, an armed citizen can defend him or herself from a police officer that is not behaving like a police officer should. Oh no, that never happens right?
If cities want to have their own police force, fine, let them have it, but do not assume that just because the city has their own security force that it is the same as each citizen having the right to bear arms and defend themselves.
I can have respect for individuals who want to take a job as a police officer because they are taking care of their family and doing a job that gets called for serving the cities interests, which sometimes happens to coincide with keeping the city safe as they can by intervening in criminal activities as they are reported.
Police are often called 'first responders, this is because police are just that, responders. They arrive after the fact of a criminal act being reported. They cannot protect each and every individual to prevent or immediately intervene if someone is confronted.
How dare they tell citizens to do nothing but give in to the perpetrators demands and wait till their 'authorities' arrive.
Constitutionally speaking, police have got no say in how I defend myself. The U.S Constitution says I have the right to defend myself, my family and my community. I do, as an individual.
Their police force does not remove or invalidate that right.
The law making and law enforcing agencies in our country need to understand, laws are not to be dictated to the people, but decided upon and shared by the people. Law enforcement is not to assume that everyone is a criminal first, but to respect each and every person who, according to the same Constitution, is innocent, did you hear me? I N N O C E N T UNTIL proven guilty.
That means drop your bad attitudes and conceit and start treating the citizens you are too afraid to get out of your cars and interact with some respect first.
I don't care how much like a fool a person or group of persons is acting like, until they have actually, broken a law and been found guilty, you can take them into custody but you had better keep a civil and respectful mind about you the whole time.
Things aren't always what they seem, as so many of these innocent people who are being released after years of shoddy and lazy police work made them something they are not.
Each individual citizen must not be afraid to stand up and not accept the false information that police departments espouse that they are the only legitimate defense for citizens.
They are not correct.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Traitors among us
Members of both Democrats and Republicans have for far too long held the American people hostage in their battle for total control of the American government.
They have outright lied, made decisions behind closed doors, they will not allow a bill to pass without amending it to to add financial and other boons to their party, political fanciers and cronies.
They behave in un-ethical ways to obtain money for themselves and their comrades. They make every effort to falsify information, shift blame to others and in every way practice deceit.
When they cannot hide their transgressions or their utter failures, they engage in the most shameful public arguments and efforts to create distractions.
What it comes down to is two parties who are in a fight to see which can totally dominate every aspect of American government knowing full well that the government was never intended to be dominated by any one faction.
I find both the Republican and Democratic parties guilty of treason against the American people. They have allowed their own quest for power to obfuscate their elected job to represent the best interests for ALL American citizens, regardless of party affiliation.
Both parties have been heard in public to seek control of both houses of Congress, the presidency and placement of party reps on the Supreme court. That is tantamount to planning a complete takeover of the government and we should not stand for it.
How are foreign enemies any worse when those within our borders practice conquest without regard to the Constitution and the people?
It is time for an end to party politics. The experiment has failed and provided unlimited and expansive opportunities for abuse of the American government. It is time to remove these parties and allow all persons to stand on their own accord, with their own platforms and values before the American people.
It is time to remove the 'career' politicians from office and allow the 'average' citizen to be allowed to do his or her best to represent the interests of their fellow citizens.
Take heed party politicians, Dante's ninth circle of Hell, that shared with the Devil himself, is reserved for traitors to their state and their fellow man.
They have outright lied, made decisions behind closed doors, they will not allow a bill to pass without amending it to to add financial and other boons to their party, political fanciers and cronies.
They behave in un-ethical ways to obtain money for themselves and their comrades. They make every effort to falsify information, shift blame to others and in every way practice deceit.
When they cannot hide their transgressions or their utter failures, they engage in the most shameful public arguments and efforts to create distractions.
What it comes down to is two parties who are in a fight to see which can totally dominate every aspect of American government knowing full well that the government was never intended to be dominated by any one faction.
I find both the Republican and Democratic parties guilty of treason against the American people. They have allowed their own quest for power to obfuscate their elected job to represent the best interests for ALL American citizens, regardless of party affiliation.
Both parties have been heard in public to seek control of both houses of Congress, the presidency and placement of party reps on the Supreme court. That is tantamount to planning a complete takeover of the government and we should not stand for it.
How are foreign enemies any worse when those within our borders practice conquest without regard to the Constitution and the people?
It is time for an end to party politics. The experiment has failed and provided unlimited and expansive opportunities for abuse of the American government. It is time to remove these parties and allow all persons to stand on their own accord, with their own platforms and values before the American people.
It is time to remove the 'career' politicians from office and allow the 'average' citizen to be allowed to do his or her best to represent the interests of their fellow citizens.
Take heed party politicians, Dante's ninth circle of Hell, that shared with the Devil himself, is reserved for traitors to their state and their fellow man.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
If we MUST endure federal intrusion...
The Federal government seems intent to keep increasing it's size and oversight of American citizens lives and day to day activities.
Up to this point, no matter how much protesting has gone on, the government insists on protecting us from ourselves. It insists that a nanny state is the only way to keep things "fair" and politically correct.
Recently, the EPA was smacked for allowing a major corporation, Bayer Crop Sciences, to release for public sale a pesticide that may cause heavy damages to beneficial pollinators like honey bees.
Now, the EPA was set up to protect the public interests from corporations and groups who desire to pawn any poison or nonsense on an unwary public. It is their mission to represent the interests and the safety of the public at large from poisonous and toxic products being foisted on us in the name of a dollar.
So, what does the EPA do? They ram a product without making sure all the pre-requisite tests are complete or even conducted through the system so their buddies at multi-national, highly profitable Bayer Crop Sciences can sell another product on their timetable.
Even if Bayer's product would have completed the tests sufficiently, the tests are there for a reason. As it is, there is much to indicate the product does NOT meet standards and does possibly cause damages and death to pollinators. Shameful at the least.
Bayer claims to be 'disappointed" in the ruling.
It seems to me, that if Bayer were the conscientious, ethical company they want to claim to be, they would have insisted for their own sake, that the product fully meet all EPA specs and tests before release.
But no, instead, they kept silent and took all the money that came from being sold, albeit, without proper controls being met.
Now that the product is to be removed from the shelves however, now it's not fair.
This case demonstrates that our government is for sale at nearly every level and that while corporates love to play the victim and call to the forefront of discussion how much they contribute to society in way of taxes pad, jobs created, products brought to the public, etc... they really only beleive in the bottom line, profits. What do the investors want and to hell with everyone else.
Money isn't the end all, be all reason for living and being in this world.
We expect, nay demand, ethical behavior from the businesses in our communities and more so from the government agencies forced on us to supposedly look out for our interests.
Yet again, MY "bottom" line...Corporations have nothing to keep them ethical and operating in the interests of the community. They are removed from personal and general liability and responsibility and as a result, show no interest in being responsible members of or society.
Large government is a monolith and a greedy one at that. Once it assumes power, it never pulls back. It's interest consistently grow to keeping and growing power instead of ensuring power continues to stay in the hands of the people and the states.
Up to this point, no matter how much protesting has gone on, the government insists on protecting us from ourselves. It insists that a nanny state is the only way to keep things "fair" and politically correct.
Recently, the EPA was smacked for allowing a major corporation, Bayer Crop Sciences, to release for public sale a pesticide that may cause heavy damages to beneficial pollinators like honey bees.
Now, the EPA was set up to protect the public interests from corporations and groups who desire to pawn any poison or nonsense on an unwary public. It is their mission to represent the interests and the safety of the public at large from poisonous and toxic products being foisted on us in the name of a dollar.
So, what does the EPA do? They ram a product without making sure all the pre-requisite tests are complete or even conducted through the system so their buddies at multi-national, highly profitable Bayer Crop Sciences can sell another product on their timetable.
Even if Bayer's product would have completed the tests sufficiently, the tests are there for a reason. As it is, there is much to indicate the product does NOT meet standards and does possibly cause damages and death to pollinators. Shameful at the least.
Bayer claims to be 'disappointed" in the ruling.
It seems to me, that if Bayer were the conscientious, ethical company they want to claim to be, they would have insisted for their own sake, that the product fully meet all EPA specs and tests before release.
But no, instead, they kept silent and took all the money that came from being sold, albeit, without proper controls being met.
Now that the product is to be removed from the shelves however, now it's not fair.
This case demonstrates that our government is for sale at nearly every level and that while corporates love to play the victim and call to the forefront of discussion how much they contribute to society in way of taxes pad, jobs created, products brought to the public, etc... they really only beleive in the bottom line, profits. What do the investors want and to hell with everyone else.
Money isn't the end all, be all reason for living and being in this world.
We expect, nay demand, ethical behavior from the businesses in our communities and more so from the government agencies forced on us to supposedly look out for our interests.
Yet again, MY "bottom" line...Corporations have nothing to keep them ethical and operating in the interests of the community. They are removed from personal and general liability and responsibility and as a result, show no interest in being responsible members of or society.
Large government is a monolith and a greedy one at that. Once it assumes power, it never pulls back. It's interest consistently grow to keeping and growing power instead of ensuring power continues to stay in the hands of the people and the states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)