Politics

So… just how much is enough?

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

This is what happens when you go off the teleprompter… you put your foot in your mouth.

The article says it best, so I’ll just leave it at that.

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

Compare that to his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

He should have stuck with the TelePrompter. The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.

Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.

Chicago lawmakers want to put more guns on the street… sorta.

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Chicago Democrats want the Illinois National Guard to be deployed to help with the violent crime on their city streets.

Chicago Democrats John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford said they want Quinn, Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis to allow guardsmen to patrol streets and help quell violence. Weis said he did not support the idea because the military and police operate under different rules.

“Is this a drastic call to action? Of course it is,” Fritchey said. “Is it warranted when we are losing residents to gun violence at such an alarming rate? Without question. We are not talking about rolling tanks down the street or having armed guards on each corner.”

What he envisions, Fritchey said, is a “heightened presence on the streets,” particularly on the roughly 9 percent of city blocks where most of the city’s violent crimes occur.

So what they’re wanting is well… more guns on the streets. If you put more police, or national guardsmen in the street, that’s what you’re wanting: to put more people with guns on the streets!! Only these people are assumed to be good, law-abiding people.

“I’m open to anything that reduces violence. But I have concerns when you mix law enforcement and the military,” Weis said.

Really? So how about improving your gun laws for law-abiding citizens?

Yet the lawmakers said they are coming together because gun violence should be a priority to all Chicagoans.

“No help is too much help” Ford said. “This is not just about the murders. It’s about the crime. It’s about people being stabbed, robbed and in the hospital on life support.”

This isn’t about gun violence. This is about degenerates committing anti-social acts, acts of violence, all because they are able to wield power over the citizenry because the almighty powers that be feel the citizens cannot be trusted to defend themselves but we your almighty caretaker promise to keep you safe — a promise impossible to fulfill. It’s not about guns. If guns were the problem, then why are you proposing putting more guns on the street?!?! Guns are not the problem, it’s the people using the guns that are the problem… or in this case, are part of a proposed solution.

So let’s stop talking about it in a way that falsely demonizes inanimate objects. Let’s look at the real problem, and let’s look at real solutions. Allow your citizens to not be victims. It won’t make the evil go away, but it’s a proven good step in the right direction.

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.