Politics

SB 1070

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Many people are up in arms about Arizona’s passage of SB 1070.

What side of the fence do you come down on? Easy to tell. Do you refer to those folks as “illegal” or “undocumented”. It’s like calling it a “pre-owned” car instead of a “used” car. Call it whatever you want, the bottom line fact remains the same: they are illegal, they are in the country illegally. They are breaking the law.

The law sends “a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens,” said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and author of the book “Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization.”

[…]

Espinosa said Mexico regrets that Arizona did not take into account the “valuable contributions that migrants make to the economy, society and culture of Arizona and the United States of America.”

Hrm. Since when were we supposed to be friendly to law breakers and other assorted criminals? Extending that logic, we should invite the burglar into our home and give him some tea and help him carrying our belongings out to his getaway car. And we’re supposed to take into account the value contributions made by criminals? I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that logic.

That all said, SB 1070 bothers me. Pretty much anyone can be stopped at any time to have their citizenship questioned and verified.

“Papers, please.”

*shiver*

Will this lead to racial profiling? To be honest, the only way it won’t be able to do that is if everyone is questioned and everyone is checked; that’s not going to happen. Now I see nothing wrong with using race as an identifier because well, the color of someone’s skin or other ethnic characteristic can be a valid identifier (saying I’m the Asian guy is a valid way to pick me out of a crowd here in the US; in Korea, saying I’m the tall guy will probably work better). But really, are they going to be asking the Asian guy for his ID or the Mexican guy?

And ultimately, will anything be achieved? Or will this just bolster the counterfeit ID market?

SB 1070 is yet another thing that has good intentions, but is ultimately more pavement for the road to hell.

Updated: Some people have read this and spoken with me about what I wrote. So I want to (attempt to) clarify my feelings on this.

I have a problem with breaking the law. Call me crazy. I do like seeing the law enforced. I do think we have some stupid laws on the books, but in general I don’t feel immigration laws are (conceptually) stupid.

That said, I do think it’s good to allow people to move about. My mother is an immigrant. She went through proper channels tho.

Now if someone wants to come here, make a better life, work, work hard, pay taxes, contribute, and be a part of the society? I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people coming, taking, then leaving and contributing nothing back… especially when that taking ends up taking from me (e.g my medical costs are high because people who cannot pay go to the ER, get service, then bail… and I wind up paying for it).

But note, my problem isn’t exclusively an immigrant problem! A lot of the parasites in this country are citizens of this country. I have a problem with parasitic behavior (and criminal behavior).

As for how SB 1070 is implemented, I don’t like that. “Papers please” does not make for a free country.

I can understand wanting to deal with illegal immigration, but this isn’t the right way to do it.

I feel safer, don’t you?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I knew they were starting them at a young age.

Meet America’s tiniest terrorist: 6-year-old Allison Mosher, who’s landed on the nation’s No Fly List alongside mad bombers and other villainous thugs in a mind-boggling snafu that could scuttle her family’s Grand Canyon vacation, her outraged dad says.

We’re assured the list is accurate. So I guess little Allison must have seriously threatened someone that took her pillow at naptime or brought her white milk instead of chocolate when it was time for snacks. I guess Al Qaeda is infiltrating our playgrounds, making swing-sets the next big target.

But the list must be accurate. The TSA told us so:

Ann Davis, a TSA spokeswoman, said that because there are no children on the No Fly List…

No children on the No Fly List, like 6-year-old child Allison Mosher, who is on the No Fly List.

Yes yes. We have nothing to worry about. This is all for our safety.

Ronald Reagan said it best:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

The Metal Detectors Cometh….

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

I heard this was a definite go but still had questions. While the Austin-American Statesman article has an obvious bias, it at least seems to answer the question.

And, under an exemption approved Tuesday as a part of a new security plan, Texans with a concealed-handgun license will be able to take their pistols into the statehouse as well.

So this sucks that we’ll have metal detectors, but at least CHL holders will not be abridged. Of course I don’t really care for that either because concealed means concealed. But as soon as you have to notify the guy working the detector, you’re going to stand out, you’re going to get some sort of special treatment (e.g. won’t have to go through the detector), and it’s going to make the sheep scared and cause problems.

*sigh*

And in the end will safety really be improved by this? No. It won’t be any more or any less safe. It makes some legislators feel better about themselves (tho, good for Rick Perry for being the only one to vote against this measure), but that’s all.

We’ll see how this pans out in reality.

So Paul, what are we supposed to do?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Over at Sebastian’s place, “Carl from Chicago” posted a comment. The comment was in response to a Daily Show segment on open carry, which had Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign on as a guest. Carl received this email from Helmke regarding the segment, and in the email wrote this:

While The Daily Show pokes fun at those who carry guns openly, it just doesn’t make sense for the safety of our families to have more guns being carried by more people in more public places. It’s the wrong direction for this country to head.

As I said in the clip, gun owners should leave their guns at home. Let’s keep them out of places like coffee shops, sports stadiums, and schools.

So what you’re saying is, in an effort to increase safety of our families, gun owners should leave their guns at home.

That doesn’t make sense, if you look at facts and data.

If you consider actual violent crime statistics, about 85% of violent crimes happen outside the home. That means violent crime happens in coffee shops (like the 4 Lakewood police officers killed in a coffee shop). That means violent crime happens in sports stadiums (like at a Long Beach high school football game). That means violent crime happens at schools (Columbine, and numerous others).  Yes, those events involved guns, but the guns didn’t leap up on their own and kill innocent people. No, there was someone evil using the gun. They were acts of evil people, not acts of evil steel and evil lead.

Paul, if you’re willing to work against bad people being able to do bad things, I’d be with you. But you’re against good people doing good things. How can I support that? Furthermore, the constant refusal to look at the actual facts and data, to look at the actual Truth of the matter? Well… that just leaves us with “reasoned discourse”.

I know it’s not a coffee house, but it is a Waffle House. The fact two men were open carrying? It prevented the Waffle House from being robbed — known because when the thugs were arrested they flat out admitted seeing the two citizens with guns is what kept them from robbing the place (at least while the citizens were in the restaurant). Yes, open carry prevented a violent crime from occurring.

So tell me Paul, if we did follow your wishes and us good guys left our guns at home…. please tell me, what do you then propose to do to actually make our coffee shops, sports stadiums, and schools safer? Because the fact is, the bad guys aren’t going to leave anything at home, and the bad guys don’t like to come get us in our homes… they want to come get us at the coffee shops, the sports stadiums, the schools — this I know, for the data tells me so. Please Paul tell me, in light of the facts, what is your plan?

NE getting better

/ hsoi

I have family in Nebraska. I have family in Omaha. Omaha has a terrible gang problem. Consequently, in a well-intended by misguided effort, Omaha has some pretty gun-unfriendly laws on the books. The sorts of laws that do nothing to stop the gang violence but do a lot to cripple the law-abiding citizens.

A few years ago Nebraska put concealed handguns on the law books. I think the specifics of the law are still a bit strenuous, but progress is progress. And it’s obvious (based on what I’m posting about) that efforts are being made to improve things.

Still, one problem remained: Omaha’s laws and ordinances. It still made things ridiculous for law-abiding citizens, including permit holders.

Thankfully LB-817 is about to be sent to Gov. Dave Heineman’s desk for his signature. LB-817 improves things in a lot of ways, especially clearing the air regarding preemption.

No Corporate Taxes? Outrage!

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Via Slashdot I read an article from Forbes Magazine about how some of the top corporations in the US ultimately pay no taxes.

Some of the world’s biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do–that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

Insert outrage here, right?

I’m not sure. On the surface yes, that sucks. Thing is, we’ve developed a structure that ultimately rewards people who want to get rich and are willing to do so… almost at any cost. That’s both a good thing and a bad thing. But as I go through life I’ve come to realize that the less I accept being someone else’s drone and instead work to manage my own affairs and utilize “the system” to my advantage, yes, there are benefits.

Who doesn’t want to reduce the amount of money the government takes out of their paychecks? We all strive to fork over as little as possible, right? If there are ways that color within the lines to do so, why shouldn’t we take advantage of that? The tax code is set up in such a way that these big corporations can shelter income from taxes, so why shouldn’t they do that? Yes they perhaps lobbied to gain such advantage but again, that’s just them working to fork over as little as possible. It’s what we all ultimately want, right?

So why get ugly with these people? Do we have our sights and goals set so low that we should punish the rich big guys? What happens when the day comes that you’re one of those rich big guys? Or do you never esteem or see yourself there? Call me an optimist, but I’m going to continue to work towards that end. I may never get there, but it sure seems like time better spent (being productive and working to achieve bigger things, than just bitching about those that have achieved bigger things).

Because ultimately folks… if you screw the big guys, you end up screwing yourself.

Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. “The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes,” says Hodge, “because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments.”

In the same vein, JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. “Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea,” said Dimon. “All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers.”

In the end you’re always going to be the one that pays. They may hide the cost, they may redirect, there may be many layers of indirection between you and the ultimate tax. But it’s always going to be you and me that ultimately pays. So if you really want to work to keep more of your paycheck, well… stop letting taxes pay for everything. Don’t think “corporate taxes” or “taxing the wealthy” is somehow putting the burden on someone else and not you, because it’s false — it will come back to bite you. And if you’re that sort that feels we should spread the wealth around, put your money where your mouth is and PayPal your paycheck to me now. 🙂

Glad to hear it

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

About damn time.

LINCOLN – Attorney General Jon Bruning today issued an opinion finding that Omaha’s city ordinance requiring handguns to be registered does not apply to anyone with a state- recognized concealed handgun permit.

“The Legislature clearly intended the concealed carry permit process to be stringent,” Bruning said. “If you go through the steps to obtain a permit, there’s no reason for cities to make you jump through additional hoops.”

Nebraskans must undergo a background check, firearms training and fingerprinting, and submit a photograph and $100 to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

The Concealed Handgun Permit Act, as amended by LB430 in 2009, pre-empts municipal bans on the carrying of concealed handguns. The Omaha ordinance, which prohibits the possession of unregistered concealable firearms, violates this pre-emption as it applies to those who possess a valid carry permit recognized by Nebraska.

Given the wording of “state-recognized”, well… my Texas state CHL is recognized as valid (via reciprocity) within Nebraska.

This is all good. Omaha has been very anti-gun, but the only people that’s served to hurt are the law-abiding citizens. The gangs and other criminal element so prevalent in Omaha of course doesn’t give a fairy fart about any laws. So now removing barriers from law-abiding citizens, that’s a good thing.

20 Ways Obamacare will take away our freedoms

/ hsoi

Was browsing Google News and was presented with this article from Investor’s Business Daily.

For those that think we’re not losing freedoms and choice, well… there it is, right out of HR 3590.

Now I have to wonder. I was about to start an LLC for myself. It’d be a single-member LLC. Just me. Am I going to have to get health insurance for it, or pay the $750 annual penalty? That’s going to hurt, a lot. I need to look into this.

*sigh* The LLC wasn’t going to make huge money… something where $750 would actually be a rather substantial cut. *sigh*

Honestly, if I’m going to have to do that, I may not start it. The startup costs are already going to eat me alive, the insurance costs, and other such things. And then this on top of it? Yeah… way to fight for the little guys there.

Well, just have to see how everything pans out in the end. The dust has yet to settle.

I want accountability

/ hsoi

The thing about the “health care reform” that gets me is there’s no accountability.

Regarding the recently passed legislation, Nancy Pelosi said:

Health insurance reform will stand alongside Social Security and Medicare in the annals of American history.

Hrm. So it will stand alongside two failed and bankrupt Ponzi schemes. Ironic foreshadowing?

If I ran my household like our Federal Government is run, I’d be bankrupt or thrown in jail. There’s no CEO that can run a business like the government is run. Ultimately it’s all down to one thing: accountability. I’m accountable to my wife and children, to my parents, to those interested in the well-being of myself, my wife, and my children. I must run my household well, else I will pay the penalty. If a CEO runs their business in a poor manner, they will lose their job, they will lose the compensation, the stock options, and if they ran it in an illegal manner they will go to jail. But when the President, when the Congressmen and Senators, when they run things in a terrible manner… where’s the accountability?

Well, we say that it’s to the voters… that they will be voted out and lose their jobs. But the way this “reform” was pushed through? It’s evident there’s no concern for being voted out. Congressmen were promised appointments to other government jobs in exchange for their votes (e.g. Bart Gordon (D-TN) promised the job of NASA administrator, John Tanner (D-TN) US ambassador to NATO). So what’s to fear? Get voted out, big deal… they’ve got something to fall back upon. Gosh… wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all could live our lives this way? Try telling those making up the 9.7% (as of Feb. 2010) unemployment rate.

When one is directly accountable for their decisions and actions they tend to make far more thoughtful decisions and take more careful action. But when you’re spending someone else’s money, when you know behaving in one way will benefit you (even if it hurts millions of others), when you know there’s no downside or loss to you personally for making poor choices… what reason do you have to care about how you act?

This isn’t about health care. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. This is a long-standing problem with all the “elected officials”.

I do think the first step is to vote the bums out.

The second step is We The People need to work to improve our system to enforce greater accountability. I’m not 100% sure what the best means to accomplish that would be, but I’m open to discussion.