Politics
Guarding against good intentions
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
— Daniel Webster
Remember, Hell is paved with good intentions.
A couple things I’m tired of
If I may vent for a moment….
You start to hear or see something over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and eventually it wears on you. I was reading this article at the Christian Science Monitor and I saw the words yet again….
Gun lobby
That it’s all about the NRA, the gun lobby, and they’re all pro-death and pro-baby killing. As if it’s just this single lobbiest organization that’s causing all of the death and evil in the world. I grant, it’s one big gorilla in the room and they are rather powerful. Do you know why they’re powerful?
Because the NRA is made up of citizens. Citizens that donate time, money, and effort to make things happen. This isn’t some sort of slacktivism where you can put a magnet on your car’s bumper or sign up for a Facebook page and make you feel good about yourself. No, the NRA has power because they are a representative organization. They represent millions of US citizens. That’s why they’re a force. Next time you want to bitch about the NRA and the “gun lobby” realize that what’s really behind that are millions of Americans. It’s not a fear to cross the gun lobby, it’s a fear to cross millions of (voting) citizens. In 1994, it wasn’t a triumph of the gun lobby, it was a large swath of America letting their voices be heard through their vote.
It’s not a matter of crossing the gun lobby or not… it’s not a matter of being afraid of the gun lobby or not… it’s the citizens, that vote, that get active in the political process, that care about infringements upon themselves, their rights, and their lives. Don’t tread on us.
But now I turn to this same group and say… can we please stop the abuse of the word “tactical”? I’m shopping for some gear and everything is tactical. There’s tactical polo shirts (huh?), tactical bottle openers, tactical butt floss, tactical bacon (OK, that’s actually kinda cool and funny). You start seeing the word “tactical” used in places where it doesn’t apply… but it makes it tacti-cool to use the word, right?
Smart guns aren’t so smart
Tam is usually full of snark, but this was a surprisingly snark-free and reason-filled posting from her (not that her postings aren’t reason-filled, just usually a healthy dose of snark goes with it). Anyway, here’s her posting about smart guns. The choice quote:
But if you look at a firearm as a piece of emergency equipment, then Authorized User technology is a no-go. A cop’s partner may need to use her gun; my roommate may need to use mine. It needs to work right the first time, every time. It cannot malfunction or, if it does so, it must “fail-dangerous“, in such a way as to leave me the ability to use the gun to defend myself, even if the Authorized User function no longer works.
Look at it this way: Would you put fingerprint recognition sensors on a fire extinguisher? How about a biometric sensor on a reserve parachute? No, you wouldn’t, because it needs to be as easy as possible for anybody to operate, even under duress and in harsh environmental conditions.
Cops and military don’t want this technology because they know the dangers of it. So why should we allow it or even force it upon the rest of the citizenry? It won’t stop bad guys from doing bad things, only good people from doing good. Why do this? And please don’t tell me it’s for the children.
Media bias? or ignorance?
Some AR-15 uppers and ammo were found in a dumpster in Austin. Howard Nemerov provides some analysis of how the local Austin media covered the story.
I’m pretty sure it was someone dumping stolen goods… but man, I can’t help but shed a tear at the wasted goods, especially that ammo. 🙂
Double standards
I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.
Sounds pretty racist and bigoted, perhaps a little misogynistic, doesn’t it?
Here’s the original quote:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Hopefully you’re paying attention and can see what I did there, just swapping the gender and racial terms around. Now that latter statement is considered a proud and good statement, one acceptable to utter. By the way, that original statement was said by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the next SCOTUS Justice.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why the latter statement is acceptable and the former is not?
Why is “black power/pride” good and “white power/pride” bad?
As far as I can tell, they’re the same thing. They’re saying that one person or group is superior to another due to race. I thought that was the very definition of racism.
What happened to the cries for equality? To being blind to people’s racial and gender and other differences (religious, sexual preference, etc.)? I swore this sort of thing was what the Democrats/Liberals all wanted in this world. So why do they go so far out of their way to always make such a big deal out of their race and gender? I mean, if you want people to stop caring about race and gender and those such things well… then you need to stop caring about race and gender and those such things. So long as you keep making a big deal out of your race and your gender, then well… it’s always going to remain a big deal.
Linoge shares his thoughts on Judge Sontomayor.
So, does this mean Obama is selecting a racist? Gosh… and in those days after his election all people kept saying was how his election was proof that we’re no longer a racist country. Change you can believe in?
Updated: Richard A. Epstein @ Forbes weighs in.
Updated 2: Breda, who I think has a vagina, is thus partially qualified to speak here.
The Great Ethanol Scam
I have yet to be convinced that ethanol is truly a good “miracle” thing for anyone but the ethanol industry. If it was truly that good, it would be able to stand on its own two feet and not survive purely due to government mandate (i.e. it only survives because the force of law is behind it). I also don’t like how it affects corn prices.
Ed Wallace has an article in BusinessWeek magazine discussing The Great Ethanol Scam. (h/t to Slashdot).
If you read the comments at Slashdot you’ll read discussion of the success Brazil has. This is all well and good, but it’s going to require massive changes to succeed, from how the ethanol is made to all the cars that we drive. If this could be done, great. But how to get there? and can we (please) allow the free market to get us there?
I do think we need to pursue fuel sources other than petroleum-based fuels because of one simple reason: we’re consuming it faster than it can be produced (by Mother Nature). We’re going to run out.
Why does anyone need one of those?
This is something that’s been rolling around in my head for a while, but after this, I figure it’s time to move some electrons.
The catalyst is a comment in an opinion piece by Robert F. Green at the Fallbrook Bonsall Village News titled “Gun ownership has brought lawnessness”. I’m focusing on this passage from Mr. Green’s article:
Single-shot rifles and shotguns for bona-fide hunting is okay, but handguns, assault weapons and the like are a no-no! Come on, America, let’s grow up! This is not cowboys and Indians.
What caused the following thoughts to begin rolling around in my head was a comment made by a relative. This relative is no stranger to guns, a hunter. A few weekends ago Wife attended a large gathering of family (I regretfully was unable to attend). My understanding is a discussion came up between the relative and another at the gathering, Wife overheard something to the effect of “I don’t understand why anyone needs one of those” referring to your modern rifles with black plastic parts. Wife kept her mouth shut because it wasn’t a conversation she wanted to get into. Wife told me about it afterwards and it stuck in my craw ever since. You see, I own some of “those” and I’d like to explain a few things about them and why I choose to own them… or rather, why someone would want and/or need one of those.
I was wrong about Obama
I know those who elected President Obama still want to believe the man farts rainbows and sunshine. That his touch still heals, that he still walks on water, that he is the anti-Bush.
Folks, please take off the blinders. Obama is turning out to be more Bush than Bush ever was.
Actually, it seems some may be taking off the blinders. Courtesy of Mike Kole we have this video of Rachel Maddow @ MSNBC. She talks about one of President’s Obama’s speeches, where he spoke about “prolonged detention”:
Yeah, I was wrong about Obama. I thought he was bad. Now I know he’s worse.
Red lights and saving lives
About a year ago the city of Austin started to install red light cameras at certain intersections. Driving around town a couple days ago I went through one of those intersections and commented to Wife about them.
Red light cameras are touted as being about saving lives. Bullshit. It’s about one thing: revenue. Time and time again it’s demonstrated that red-light cameras do not save lives and in fact tend to cause more accidents. It’s also been demonstrated that the revenue is awesome:
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty is pushing to expand the District’s use of automated enforcement even as the city is on pace to collect a record amount of revenue from its red-light-camera network and the second-highest total ever from its speed-camera program.
Through the first seven months of fiscal 2009, the city had issued 53,094 citations from its 49 red-light-camera locations and brought in $4.3 million in fine revenue, putting the District on pace to rake in $7.4 million by the end of September.
Since the program’s inception in 1999, the highest total brought in by the devices in a fiscal year was $7.2 million in 2000, Metropolitan Police Department statistics show.
Meanwhile, the District’s network of photo-radar cameras is on pace to bring in $30 million of revenue this fiscal year – second only to the $32.9 million brought in during fiscal 2006.
My comment?
If this really was about saving lives, then let’s change the penalty. No fines whatsoever. What should the penalty be? Well, anything that isn’t about money. Put “points” on the driver’s license. Require the driver to attend traffic safety school. Just nothing that generates revenue for the folks wanting to install the cameras (the city, county, whomever). Propose that. See what the legislators say. Reveal their true intentions.
Of course, another solution is for people to improve their driving skills. Frankly, I think some education may do more to help that than a simple fine. But the point here is to find what the politicians truly care about (as if we don’t already know).
Stuff From Hsoi 