My favorite videos of morons talking about guns.

Please, ask yourself:

What fucking threat does a timid little caucasian boy in the middle of Utah pose to our fucking national security?

Ahhhh, I love it.

Arizona Immigration Law

I've run into a lot of opposing arguments for this law, and I've honestly tried to understand both sides and stay neutral. It's becoming harder and harder to do that.

The arguments against the idea of Arizona enacting its own law that mirrors the federal law (as this one almost perfectly does) are ludicrous.

The Obama Adm. is about to file suit against the state of Arizona today, and for what? The President calls it "misguided", but why?

Members of Congress are having a conniption over it. Again, why?

I ran into someone arguing in favor of the law today who brought up many good points.

These aren't my words:

"In the course of lawfully and peacefully going about my private affairs, in any given week, I am required to identify myself probably a dozen times or more. I carry my identification with me at all times. Producing said identification is quick, easy, and causes me no harm. It is a simple thing that takes no more than seconds to do. As I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

If I travel to a foreign country, I am expected to carry papers with me, such as passports or visas, and to produce said papers on request of local authorities. I was born and raised in the US. I look, act, dress and speak like an American. In any foreign country, I will stand out as someone, "who isn't from around here". I may logically expect increased scruetiny as a result. If I were to immigrate to a foreign country, I may logically expect such scruetiny to continue for some time as I learn to adjust and adapt to my new homeland. Again, if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

On constitutionality:

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Arizona law does not, as some have claimed, usurp that power. The Arizona law deals with those who are not naturalized and are here illegally.

Article I, Section 10 states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.". Arizona has been invaded by some half million foreign nationals, its citizens are being murdered by foreign nationals, Congress hasn't done squat to deal with the problem. Arizona is in "imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".

Article IV, Section 1, states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".

Article IV, Section 4, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion".

Article I, Section 9, states: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in Cases of... Invasion the public Safety may require it.". Invading hoards of foreign nationals enjoy no special privileges or rights. They may be rounded up and detained as needed.

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""


Pretty good, pretty good. I was watching the news and two talking heads were arguing about the matter. One disagreed on the basis that it was wrong for any state to enact laws that are more strict than the equivalent federal law. The man arguing this would probably describe himself as an open-minded liberal.

I thought about his argument, but then I thought about something else.

By and large it is the left side of the spectrum that wishes to enact stringer gun laws, and they do so by enacting ones which are much stronger than the federal laws.

I wonder what he would've said had someone brought that up.

Anyways, barring simplistic arguments about racism and bigotry, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Is healthcare a right?

Many on the left think that healthcare is a right not to be denied to anyone. I think they're wrong. I think their hearts are in the right place, but they're simply wrong. And before you start with the heartless conservative crap, hear me out.

Everyone in this country deserves the opportunity for healthcare. No, and I mean no one, should be denied coverage. This, as I've said, is one of the things I think the current healthcare legislation has right. People with preexisting conditions should be able to get care, they should know however that they're going to be paying more. Smokers should be able to get healthcare insurance, but they should pay out the ass for it because they make the conscious decision to endanger their health many times a day.

Regardless of whether you think that healthcare is a right or not, let's try to look at the issue from an economic point of view. Even before we do that, we have to come to some realizations. Whether you like it or not, the United States of America was founded on free-market principles. We have a lot more regulation nowadays, but our economy is essentially a free-market, where supply and demand sets pricing. Even if you think that capitalism is the bane of humanity, it's here to stay. At least in this country. And so long as we have a capitalistic society, we can't be instituting things that will affect a large portion of the economy negatively. Healthcare is estimated to make up 16% (Washington Post), and instating a healthcare system which negatively affects the economic efficiency of said system will hurt the economy. There's no way around it.

Back to the question at hand.

Whether you believe it's a right or not, let's just consider it what it is; a good.

When you go to buy homeowner's insurance, you're purchasing a good. It's the same when you buy car insurance. You're buying a good.

"But those don't pertain to the wellness of people" you say. Some could argue that they do, but I won't. Let's dig deeper.

Health insurance is only one type of insurance used to hedge against emergencies or tragedies. What about life insurance? Life insurance is used to make sure that those who depend on someone else to make the living have fiscal security after their loved ones have died. Should this be considered a right? What about long-term care insurance. This is becoming increasingly more important as the baby boomers start to retire. LTC insurance is something bought by the insured to make sure that when the inevitable time arrives in which they are put in a care facility they won't be a drain on their family's wealth. Should this be considered a right?

We can extend this argument to dental insurance and optical insurance. Are these rights? They are certainly good things, and they should be made available to anyone, but they're not a right.

So what's a government to do? If health insurance is not a right, then what can it do to lower costs? First we have to address the first problem in this dilemma, which is the government is trying to do something (PLEASE GOD STOP THEM!). Their hearts may be in the right place, but their brains aren't.

Some people argue that the government should set prices. Hmm...

Let us explore when our government has tried to set prices in the past.

After imports of oil fell sharply in the 1970s, the government tried to "help" the citizens of the U.S. by doing two things, one good and one bad:

1. They reduced regulation on domestic oil companies, allowing them to pump more oil into the market. (The Good)
2. They started to fix prices of gasoline to keep the prices artificially below what the market would have set them at. (The Horrifically Bad)

Here's what the pricing structure looks like when the market is allowed to set prices:

Demand and Supply meet and the price is set. Let's see what happens when the government attempts to set prices lower than the market dictates:

When the government sets the price of a good it creates a shortage. When a good is in shortage, it must be rationed.

So, if the government considers healthcare a right it will start to set prices. In this case the price setting is taking the form of a heavily subsidized "public option" that still might get through both houses. As I said in my previous post, this public option business is just one more thing that will complicate the market and increase prices for free market alternatives. This will push more people into the public option and eventually drive private health insurance out of the business except for the very rich. The public option is just a stepping stone on the way to a single-payer health system for the progressives.

So after all private options are gone the government will be the only purveyor of healthcare. They'll be pressured to keep prices artificially low, which will create a shortage. The shortage (caused by everyone wanting healthcare and doctors leaving the profession because it doesn't pay as well as it used to) will create the need for rationing.

So next time a progressive, liberal, or Democrat tells you that healthcare is a right, and that government run healthcare won't result in rationing, explain to them in a nice and respectful manner why they're completely wrong and need to take a few courses on basic economics.

I did a little sleuthing of Canada's two main progressive parties, and even they admit that their healthcare system makes necessary the act of having to wait for care, both basic and specialized.

Here's a screenshot from the New Democratic Party of Canada website:

Kind of funny how the media in America keeps telling us that Canada's health system doesn't mean longer wait times for procedures.

Just like I said in my last post, if we stop looking at this issue from an emotional standpoint and start looking at it from an economic standpoint, it's starts to make more sense.

The White House's goals for healthcare reform

I'll try not to be snarky about this. I have my views on the issue, everyone else has their own views. I'm not trying to change any views, I just want to explore things from a rational, economic, and common sense point of view, instead of just making decisions based on emotions, which I think is a major shortfall of the left's greatest downfalls when it comes to these things.

Taken from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health-care

Key things they want to change:

- Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
- Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
- Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
- Invest in prevention and wellness
- Improve patient safety and quality of care
- Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
- Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
- End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions

Let's take these one at a time.

"Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government"

Government bureaucracy won't achieve this. When I say bureaucracy I'm not trying to simply use emotional words to evoke hatred or mental images of lazy government employees. I'm talking to convey the sheer amount of "movement" that has to be achieved to get anything done when it comes to getting stuff done in a government setting.

Government is inefficient. If you can't admit that then you're either so far up your own ass that you'll deny anything bad said about government, or you've never had to deal with the government doing something that should be incredibly simple but turns out to be a giant clusterfuck.

I helped my father-in-law with some government paperwork. Remember cash for clunkers? He's a car salesman, but was given the task of dealing with the immense amount of paperwork that was necessary to get the money back from the government. We spent over a month dealing with the asinine forms, scanning, filling them out, dealing with the CFC website (a horrendous experience in and of itself), and then trying to submit. Every couple of days they'd change the rules and reject an entire batch of cars. We'd do them over again.

Government is so vast that for anything to get done, it has to go through many channels. Adding more bureaucracy to the healthcare mix will not do anything to reduce long-term growth of costs. I'm not too familiar with this part of the proposals, but I've heard about increasing mandates on employers. I think it's a nice benefit when employers provide healthcare for their employees, but I also think it causes more problems than it's worth.

If people were allowed the same tax benefit as companies have when it comes to healthcare costs (such as getting rid of the 7.5% AGI floor the current tax code has now for medical-related costs), the incentive to shop around for a better deal would be greater. Not only would people be able to have more choice than just what their employer offers, it would help mitigate the effect of one of the major causes of the uninsured today, that is, having healthcare attached to a job. When your employer provides your healthcare, you'd better hope that the economy doesn't go through a down cycle. If you get fired, you will be without insurance. Sure, there's COBRA, but it's expensive and doesn't last long. Detaching coverage from employment would at least save people from being uninsured if they lose their jobs.

"Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs"

I think this is a great idea, but you have to explore why people were in that position in the first place. If a family has a member get sick and they have to go into debt to pay the hospital, it's a clear case of not being prepared. I'm not saying they deserve the debt, but they should have been better prepared. One of the major rules of being financially responsible is keeping an emergency fund of at least nine months worth of expenses. Not only does this cover the family for nine months in case of loss of jobs, it also is there to help with enormous medical costs, should they arise.

This is actually a whole other subject that deserves its own article, but I'll have to mention it to get my point across. Too many American families are in debt. They're not in debt because of evil banks or crooked capitalists, they're in debt because they lack the long-term thought processes that are so prevalent in millionaires. Most wealthy people aren't wealthy because they make exorbitant amounts of money. They're wealthy because they think and plan for the long term. They don't finance cars because they know that if they save the money they'll save a lot in the long run. They don't spend every dime they earn on unnecessary items. They save, they invest, and they prepare for the bad times while they're in the good times.

Too many families nowadays are have negative net worths because of their spending habits. This isn't so much a healthcare issue as it is a lifestyle issue.

"Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans"

I doubt a public option would affect this in the short-term, but it would kill consumer choice in the long-term. The government doesn't pay doctors a lot when it comes to healthcare. Why do you think that doctors will order all tests necessary? Three reasons: 1) They need to actually make money doing their job 2) They want to make sure they have their asses covered so ambulance chasers like John Edwards won't come and sue them for tortious acts and 3) They have no incentive to reduce costs for their customer if their customer has no incentive to reduce costs for themselves. When you don't pay for something, you don't shop around for the best price.

There wouldn't be a mass exodus of physicians overnight, but overtime, as the government takes more and more control of the healthcare industry, the incentive to be a doctor will be diminished. At that point there WILL be rationing of care.

And let's be honest here, the "public option" is just a stepping stone on the way to a single-payer system. Don't kid yourselves.

"Invest in prevention and wellness"

I see no problem with this, but what I fail to see is why the government must step in and do this. People can do it for themselves if healthcare is more affordable.

"Improve patient safety and quality of care"

Government can't increase safety of care. They can "mandate" or "regulate" safety rules that will, in theory, increase safety, but they can't guarantee it. Think of the big peanut scare a year or so ago. The FDA had rules on how to inspect peanuts, and there was still a government failure to ensure safety.

You don't hear the words government failure in the news very often, but gee golly I sure am accustomed to hearing market failure come from the talking heads...

As for quality, see above under "Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans".

"Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans"

Governmental frolics into the free market, whether they be in the form of regulatory changes and/or "competition" in the form of a government-run option, will always raise prices. Just like new taxes on businesses. You're a fool if you think that the firms simply absorbed the cost of new regulations and taxes. They pass them into you, the consumer.

"Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job"

Again, if people were allowed the same tax benefit as companies have when it comes to healthcare costs the incentive to shop around for a better deal would be greater. Detaching coverage from employment would at least save people from being uninsured if they lose their jobs.

"End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions"

I'm all for this. It WILL raise prices for everyone, but I think it's a noble cause. It will raise prices because more money will be leaving the insurance company's big "pot", so more money will need to go into the pot to cover costs. Too many people are denied coverage in this country. The insurance companies aren't perfect, and this is one of their major transgressions.

On a side note, keep in mind that you always will hear about the failures of insurance companies, and never the millions of people who've been helped by their insurance companies. That's not emotional enough for the media to air.

In conclusion, try analyzing important things (especially when they make up such a large portion of the economy) from an economic standpoint instead of an emotional one. It's easy to say that we should have universal healthcare because "we're the richest nation in the world" or "every human has a right to healthcare" or "because Europe does it". Try doing some critical thinking on the matter, and crunch the numbers. God forbid you pick up a calculator.

Which is more dangerous?

Tell me which is more dangerous.

1) Little Jimmy is at a friend's house and comes across a loaded pistol left on a table by a negligent parent. Jimmy's parent's don't believe in owning a gun for protection and have always taught him that guns themselves were bad, only on the earth to kill, and can only be used for good when in the hands of the police or military. They also told him never, ever to touch a gun if he finds one. But little Jimmy is curious. The gun holds a certain mystique because they are forbidden to him. He's never seen one fired in real life, nor has he ever touched one. So he decides that while no one is looking he'll pick up the gun and check it out. He holds it, looks at the various parts, fiddles with the slide release, pretends to shoot it, makes "pew" sounds, looks down the barrel to see if he can see the shiny metal bullet inside, and then puts his finger on the trigger to see what it feels like. I'll stop there.

or, 

2) Little Tommy is at a friend's house and comes across a loaded pistol left on a table by a negligent parent. Tommy's parents have many guns, and have involved Tommy in shooting from a young age. They taught him how to safely handle weapons and also instilled in him a healthy dose a respect for guns as a tool that, when used wrong, can be deadly. They also taught him that they, as responsible parents, will never keep guns out of locked storage unless they are carrying or cleaning them. They also told him to always tell an adult ANYTIME there is a gun out that's not attached to someone's hip or being cleaned. The gun holds no mystique for Tommy, and he goes into the backyard where Mr. and Mrs. Potential Negligent-Homicide are arguing about the amount of chlorine to throw in the crappy above-ground pool and informs them that there is a gun out in the open and that they should put it up. They go in and put the gun up.

Which is more dangerous?

Why you can't bitch and moan about your credit card debt

It's a sad fact of reality that using credit cards to finance above-your-earning-capability lifestyles has become much too prevalent in our society. If someone wants a new TV they don't wait until they have the money saved up (something which would probably only take them a few months), they just stick it on the credit card. Some people don't like carrying cash, so they stick everything from groceries to lunch at McDonald's on their credit cards. 

The "learned" elders in our society (baby-boomers) tend to keep a credit card around for "emergencies". The last thing you want in an emergency is to stick a couple of thousand dollars on a high interest credit card. The real learned elders (the ones who grew up during the depression) know the importance of not financing your goals, and that you should pay with cash whenever possible. 

I saw a story on CNN about a woman who's Bank of America credit card's interest rate was raised from 12.99% to 30%. This angered her so she made a Youtube video about the audacity of them doing such a thing. 

Here are some of the things that she listed as being wrong:

1. Raising her interest rate without prior notice
2. Not being willing to negotiate a return to the previous rate
3. The bailout going to banks who charge large interest rates for loans
4. The banks charging high interest rates when their interest rate with the Fed is 0%

I agree with her point about the bailout. We never should've passed it. But her other points are utter rubbish.

Here's a congealed list of what people hate about credit cards. 

1. The high interest rates
2. The changes in interest rates without notice
3. The changes in minimum payment percentages
4. It's too easy to build large amounts of debt

Here's the scoop. When you get a home mortgage you can get low interest rates if you qualify. Rates of 5% aren't uncommon. When you get a car loan you can get a rate lower than 5% if your credit is good enough. You can get these lower rates because the loan is collateralized. Your mortgage is collateralized by the house, and your car loan is collateralized by your car. If you stop paying on the loan, the bank has something to recoup some of their lost capital. Banks aren't boogeymen for taking a house that collateralized a loan that was never paid. The people are boogymen for not paying the loan. Contrary to popular belief banks will work with you if you're going through a hardship. 

Credit cards are unsecured debt. They are not collateralized by anything. If you loaned a friend $300 for a new Playstation 3, wouldn't you want to have the PS3 as collateral? If your friend stopped paying you, you could just take back the PS3. But if you let them borrow the money without a clause that said you would get the game system, wouldn't you want a little extra for the risk you're bearing? Maybe an extra $25 dollars for your trouble. That's why it's okay for credit card companies to charge you more in interest. 

The credit card issuers will put in the contract booklet you receive before you activate your card a clause that will state that they can raise the interest rates whenever they want without warning. If you don't like that rule, don't activate the card. 

When a bank raises the minimum payment percentage it really can hurt people, but only the people who are dumb enough to have a big balance and to only pay the minimum every month. If you're carrying $10,000 on your card and the minimum monthly payment is 2% of the balance, you'd pay $200. Banks have been known to raise that to rates such as 4-5%, so that would mean that you'd be paying $400-500 per month without notice. Now, there should be some notice of this, I'm in agreeance there. But again, it's unsecured debt. You're the risky party. 

It is easy to build up a large bunch of debt with credit cards, but that's not the bank's problem. That's a problem of personal responsibility. If someone can't trust themselves with a credit card, they should not apply for one. It's not the bank's fault you reached your credit limit by with beer, a new flat-screen, and a gaggle of internet porn charges. 

Not there are some reforms that need to happen in the credit card industry. Universal default is an evil tool of the devil. Universal default is when the issuing bank learns that you were late on a payment (could be an old car loan, student loan, etc.) so they raise your rate. Keep in mind that these late payments had absolutely nothing to do with your ability to pay your current credit card. The missed payments in question could've been over ten years ago, and they could've been settled. 

There's been some talk lately about raising the age at which you can acquire a credit card to 21. I think that's a horrible idea. If people aren't ever allowed to make their mistakes then they can never learn the valuable lessons that come with it. 

Bank fees are out of control also. There are so many that it's hard to keep straight. They sneak them in for the most ridiculous reasons. I'd love to see some reform in this area. 

Moral of the story, if you have credit card debt, don't whine about it. If you have credit card debt from an emergency, I feel for you, but that's why we have emergency funds. If your bank just raised your interest rate, consider it an opportunity to pay off the balance, instead of sitting there with you arms crossed, sniveling about it and calling them names. 

Aye, the moral of the story is personal responsibility. 

Obama sucks at economics.

He must have flunked it. Or he's been taught by someone subscribing to the Keynesian school of thought. Either way, he lacks knowledge.

I'm not speaking broadly about his handling of the economy, I'm speaking of his actual ability to comprehend the laws of economics. 

Take his healthcare proposal. 

Logic dictates that when a heavily subsidized option for anything undercuts the other free-market options in that particular market, it will create an unfair advantage. He says his plan will "increase competition". That's a blatant lie. His plan will push people out of private insurance and into the public plan. Give people a cheaper alternative and they'll take it. This will create an oligopoly, and eventually a government monopoly on the health insurance market. 

It also won't "lower the cost of healthcare for everyone". 

After everyone goes to the monopolized public option the massive demand and subsequent cost of that option means that it will need to cut costs or increase funding. This is where the healthcare rationing "scare tactic" (as the left calls it) comes into play. It's not a boogyman scenario. When things get that bad something will have to be done, and rationing is the simplest way to achieve control over costs. We'll have to wait for both routine and critical care. It's not a rightist propaganda tool, it really does happen in Canada and the UK. 

My second example of his monkey-with-a-learning-disability economics intellect would be his "green jobs" plan. 

He wants to increase regulation and funnel money into green energy investments, thereby "creating" green jobs. 

This is what's called a broken window fallacy. 

Say you intentionally break a window with the intent that it will "create" a job for someone to do. The work that it takes to fix the window will have to be done by someone willing to clean up the glass and someone willing to replace the window pane. But this isn't creating jobs at all. All it does is divert capital from more constructive things. The money spent on cleanup and replacement would have been spent elsewhere had the window not been broken. It would've been invested, or spent on goods that stimulate private business. 

The exact same thing will happen when he tries to divert funds away from one thing and into another. No jobs will be created, they will just be moved from other sectors of the economy, and it certainly won't be the same people who just lost their jobs being moved. They'll have to find another job. 

In order to solve our "healthcare crisis", we need to do three big things.

1) Medical Tort Reform

I'm not a fan of tort reform. I'm really not. But I REALLY FUCKING HATE AMBULANCE CHASING TRIAL LAWYERS (you know, like John Edwards, that cheating bag of retarded-monkey shit). 

But tort reform isn't good for the individual. I don't need some bureaucratic twat telling me how much I can get from my lawsuit award. I do, however, understand both sides of the matter. 

People who rally against reform say it's hurting people's right to fair compensation and lowering the incentive to not produce shoddy products. The proponents of reform say that the amount of lawsuits for silly things are clogging up the legal system and keeping the meaningful cases from being heard in a reasonable amount of time. 

They're both right. But there are ways to make everyone happy.

a) Make the losing party pay the other side's legal expenses: This would make sure that lawsuits are only filed when the plaintiff thinks they have a legitimate claim against the defendant. Because if their case is lost, they'll be in a world of financial hurt.

b) Enact commonsense medical malpractice tort reform: Don't limit what we can get when we get hit by a negligent driver, but do limit what we can get for negligent doctors (of which there are few). Doctors build in the cost of their immense amounts of malpractice insurance into their services, as do medical supply companies. Pacemakers are about $1000-2000 more expensive than they need to be because the manufacturers need a ton of malpractice insurance to cover their asses. Doctors are also less likely to perform unnecessary tests on their patients. They do this because it's both 1) paid for by the insurance or medicare and 2) used as a hedge in making sure they can prove they did everything possible if they get taken to court.

c) Enact laws against trial lawyers advertising on TV about how they'll get those evil bastards that gave you mesothelioma and cancer and a broken arm and a workplace  injury and denied disability: (See: Jeff Martin and Binder and Binder).

2) Go back to cash-based doctor visits and major medical insurance with high deductibles, and health savings accounts.

Back in the good ol' days before health plans, there was just health insurance. Anyone in need of a vaccination, checkup, or physical went to their family doctor and paid cash. It's ridiculous that it's gotten to the point where we pay a copay for a fucking checkup.

People who use the method above save money in an HSA (health savings account), which is available to people in high-deductible health insurance plans. Funds put into this account are not subject to an income tax, and the money in the account rolls over into the next year. 

When people have HMOs they get lazy. HMOs negotiate with doctors on prices. One insurance company will pay a doctor less than another based on negotiations. It's also a big financial burden for physicians. They must hire on additional workers to deal with health insurance payments. It's not a fun situation. 

Doctors will likely give you a discount if you're paying with cash. When their patients pay with cash, they get the money up front, instead of waiting for the HMO to pay up (often this takes over a month). 

Another benefit of paying for regular is that it forces consumers to shop around for the best price. Imagine if your grocery purchases were paid for my someone else. You wouldn't worry about getting store brand items. You'd want name brands. You wouldn't get the crappy beef, you'd go for the prime. You would and you know you would. But you of course don't do that when you're shopping with your own money. The same thing applies to healthcare. If you're using your own money it behooves you to shop around for the best prices. If you have insurance paying for regular visits you get into the "well, I'm not really paying for the test so let's do it" mindset. It's wasteful. 

If you end up in a bad wreck or with cancer, the major medical insurance kicks in. After you pay the deductible with untaxed dollars from you HSA, insurance does pay for things. 

3) Stop listening to the media's bias

I'm talking about both sides. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, etc.. Sicko is full of misquotes and misinformation. If you really, truly believe the Cuban healthcare system is better than ours and that the Cuban government didn't take the film crew to the hospital for the "haves", then go here. For God's sake look at the pictures of those poor people. The Cuban healthcare system is atrocious, and believing it's better than the American system is damned foolishness. 

4) Take a look at what the Federal Reserve has done to our money

Our money is worth squat. It's been inflated by interest rate cuts. The Fed prints money out of thin air. It's never been audited. By decreasing the value of the money we currently have earned, it essentially has used our savings to bail out big businesses. It's goal is to sooth the ups and down of the market, but it causes as many bubbles as it aims to fix.

If we did those four things, we'd be so much better off in the long run. We'd retain our freedom. We'd not be told but some buearucrat fuck-nut in Washington that we have to purchase healthcare or face a fine. We'd have sound money. We'd have more money left in our pockets. 

We'd all be happier, and our medical innovations wouldn't be stifled by undue regulation. 

If you still support Obama's healthcare plan after listening to common sense arguments such as the one I just laid out, then I guess there's no changing your mind. 

Media Sensationalism

Media sensationalism is a big problem in today's society. Americans rely so heavily on the news to help them form their opinions about certain issues. Among the hotly contested subjects that the media frequently misreports on are dangers to children, healthcare, and firearms.  

I was perusing the internet, minding my own business when I came across the term "cop killer" bullets. 

Let's explore this.  

When the media (or a special interest group) uses the phrase "cop killer", it's meant to play to our emotions. In the very early nineties Winchester released a new type of ammunition specializing in personal defense, for both law enforcement officers and civilians. They called it Black Talon. The "black" came from the oxidized Lubalox coating and the "talon" probably came from the fact that the rounds were hollow-point bullets. The Lubalox coating was to protect the rifling in a gun's barrel.  

Hollow-point bullets are designed for self-defense use. Full metal jacket bullets are not as easily stopped by a body, and are therefor much more likely to exit the body and cause potential harm to people or things behind the target. The way hollow-point bullets work is when they hit a soft target the metal petals expand, slowing the bullet's travel (to keep it from exiting through the back of the target), causing a greater area of damage (to better stop the threat), and to create hydrostatic shock (more important in more powerful cartridges).  

Now for the media sensationalism. It can affect anyone. I've fallen for it before. Everyone does. Even the LEO that taught my concealed carry class fell for it.  

"All armor-piercing ammunition is illegal, including Black Talon ammo and every other bullet coated with Teflon. No cop-killing ammo is allowed."  

There are a few things wrong with what he said.  

1. If you're wearing a bullet-proof vest for protection, you're much better off being hit with a hollow-point round. The energy is much easer dissipated because of the expanding pedals. FMJs are the bullets you don't want to get hit with.  

2. Black Talon ammunition wasn't coated with Teflon. Like I said above, the coating is called Lubalox. It's meant to not harm gun barrels.  

3. No Black Talon ammunition was released in FMJ. It was all HP. There goes the "cop-killer" excuse.  

4. Simply coating a bullet with Teflon WILL NOT increase its penetration ability. It won't do anything except rub off on whatever it hits.  

5. Black Talon bullets were simply jacketed hollow-point bullets, just like most other self-defense round, including the Speer Gold Dot HP bullets I carry in my gun.  

But how could a 20-year police veteran who's teaching a class on self-defense and the law fall for such things? Because sometimes the media like to do this little thing called lie.  

Back in 1996 some maniac shot up a train full of people, killed six people, and used Black Talon bullets to do it. A lawsuit was filed against the manufacturer (which oddly enough was thrown out because the judge decided that the ammo "performed as was intended"), and Winchester stopped production of the Black Talons. Fueling this outrage was the media's portrayal of the ammunition as being "cop-killers", "armor piercing", "coated with Teflon", and having "spiky metal petals" (which is a byproduct of any HP bullet). This bullet was singled out because of media sensationalism. It was no different than any other defense round on the market except for the black coating, which is now actually found on several high quality defense rounds. The media lied about the coating, its ballistics, and its purpose, and special interests perpetuated the lies.  

So, by getting Winchester to stop production of the bullets, those opposed to it kept no one from dying. If maniacs are going to shoot people they're going to use whatever they can get their hands on.  

The media is full of liars, both on the left and on the right.  

I guess my point is to make your own damn decisions and form your own damn opinions. Don't let some dork with nice hair and a know-it-all attitude on the boob-tube sway you.

A serious proposition for the President

I have a challenge for President Obama. If he's going to keep pushing for healthcare reform that's more about government intervention and control than effectiveness and efficiency, then I want him to do me a solid. 

Barack Obama's net worth is estimated at being a little over $7 million. I'd like to see him invest about $1 million directly into the general healthcare fund that will be used to fund the reforms he is hawking. If he is so sure of the new way of doing things I'd like him to invest money in it. I'd also love to see him and his family make do with the public option for the next four years. 

You see, in my opinion, if someone is advocating something they should be the first to finance it and sign up for it. How is this any different than what liberals ramble on and on about when it comes to a progressive tax code? Among other nonsensical reasonings they pull out of 8th grade civics textbooks, they claim that the wealthy are wealthy because of the freedoms we have so they have a moral obligation to pay more into the system than do people earning far less. How is it any less preposterous for me to wish that Obama be the first to put his money in the government managed pot and the first to sign up for mandated government healthcare? It's not. 

Besides, if the system is as efficient as he says it is it might make him some serious cash. The investment would turn him into a venture capitalist, just like Al Gore. Al Gore's venture capitalist firm is invested heavily in carbon credits. I mean, if there's a crisis (healthcare or climate), why shouldn't the people perpetuating how dangerous the situation is stand to profit greatly from it? This is America after all...

Consider This

I've heard a lot of arguing lately about whether or not people should be able to defend themselves against home intruders (or other threats outside of your home) by using deadly force. From Jersey City's Police Chief Thomas Comey to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, enemies of our right to defend ourselves are becoming more prominent. 

I often hear the argument that states citizens don't need to carry guns or even have them in the home for self-defense purposes, as that's what police are here for. If someone is trying to break into your home, you should just call the police, announce to the bad guy that the authorities will arrive shortly, and then hope the criminals don't slit your throat in the meantime. 

Well, consider this. 

You're a stay at home mother with two small children in the house. You're husband is on a business trip for the next three days. You've decided to make fried chicken for dinner. You clean the chicken, dredge it, and preheat the oil. 

Then something unthinkable happens: the oil bursts into flames. 

A giant oil fire is now raging in your kitchen, spreading quite quickly. You make sure your children in the other room are where you can see them, go to grab the fire extinguisher out of the pantry, and you're stunned to find that the extinguisher is gone. 

Then you remember. The Washington bureaucrats outlawed using fire extinguishers inside the home a little over a year ago. Their rationale was that fighting fires is what fire departments are for. Vigilante citizens armed with fire extinguishers obviously cannot be trusted to take on the flame alone, so they should be forced to call the fire department when a fire breaks out. The government must take away their only line of defense against fires for their own good. 

So, you've got a raging fire (the threat) that could be extinguished by a fire extinguisher (the tool to neutralize the threat), but since you, the lowly citizen, can't be trusted with the tool because the government says so, you are forced to grab your children, hope that your phone is charged, run outside to find shelter, all the while a raging fire is consuming everything you have.

Make sense now?

Constitutional Rights

I ran into someone on the internet who claimed that your Constitutional rights are void if people around you dislike what you're doing.

His example: If you're sitting in a classroom and you're legally concealing a weapon, if the students around you are uncomfortable with you doing this they can vote to void your right (to keep and bear arms).

This example was made under the assumption that the student is legally allowed to conceal carry on campus, has gone through the necessary background checks, and has the license.

His exact words were "if the majority of your students don't want you armed in the classroom they are sharing with you, then I believe you shouldn't be armed. I would extend that to a city, state or nation."

Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, i.e. the supreme law of the land, can't be denied just because they're unpopular. So if I start speaking out against gay marriage in San Francisco they should be able to take my right to free speech away? No, it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. If I commit a hate-crime in a predominately black city should they be able to take my right to a fair trial away, just because there was an element of racism? No, because a fair, speedy, and public trial is guaranteed to me by the Sixth Amendment. If I do a news report over a corrupt presidential administration should they be able to take my freedom of the press rights away from me because the president's popular? No, because I'm guaranteed this right under the First Amendment. What if I'm a member of the Westboro Baptist Church and I stand on a street corner with a sign that reads 'GOD HATES FAGS' should I be imprisoned for my views? No, because I'm guaranteed freedom of religion under the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is no different. Just because you're uncomfortable with my right to carry a gun for my protection doesn't mean that you can deny me that right.

Our rights are not to be compromised just because they're unpopular.

Some things are truly embarrassing.

I've lived in the South all my life (or what's commonly included as the south), and I've always maintained that people from the south are not the backwards-ass, stupid, ignorant, and bigoted people that those damned yankees up north make them out to be. 

But for every illogically ideological soggy-pancake-brained quasi-socialist from San Francisco who spews something moronic about "economic justice" and progressive bullshit, there's one person from down south who spews an equally ridiculous statement. 

I give you Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern (R).

She's an embarrassment to Oklahoma. I love my State, but we've got some nuts. She has started a little campaign known as the Proclamation for Morality, where she blames "abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery" for the nation's economic crisis, among our other problems.

I set out to write a post about the absurdities of issuing permits to shoot off fireworks, but I just couldn't let this little nugget of shame go by. 

The Second Amendment

I got curious, so I did something crazy. I googled "repeal second amendment". 

What came up made me both laugh and snort furiously at my computer.

Here I give you six opinion pieces: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I'll let you read them and make your own assumptions, but here's my opinion on the matter. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't people understand? It wasn't meant for only militias, it wasn't meant for only hunters, and it is NOT an outdated, archaic clause in an otherwise brilliant piece of work.