F*&% Compromise...

So I found out that my mom reads this blog.  And apparently she's not a big fan of all the f-bombs in my posts.   So in the spirit of compromise I will attempt to make this an f-bomb free post.  No promises, mom...but I will do my best.

But anyway I opened up Fox News this morning because hockey hadn't started yet, and I see an article where President Obama is bitching that the Republicans wont compromise on gun control.  Apparently he seems to think that Democrats are willing to compromise but Republicans are not, which of course is total bullshit.  Nobody wants to compromise, and that's why nothing ever gets done.

Compromising is un-American.  We don't compromise with our enemies, we bomb the living shit out of them until they succumb to our desires.  We don't even compromise with our allies, we tell them what we're gonna do then we go out and do it.  And if our leaders do try to compromise with allies or enemies they catch a bunch of shit from We the People...because we don't compromise dammit!


We hate compromise because we hate to lose and we hate ties even worse.  It's our competitive nature.  Look at sports.  We used to have ties in sports.  There were all kinds of ties in hockey, the NFL didn't even have overtime until the 70's, and college football didn't until the 80's or 90's.  We used to be fine with ties, but somewhere along the line we said fuc....err...we said the heck with that, we need a winner.  Now ties never happen in college football or the NHL and rarely happen in the NFL.  Baseball commissioner Bud Selig had to apologize once for "a very regrettable situation".  If you're guessing it was about a lockout, or about steroids, or gambling or cheating or some horrible off-field incident you're wrong.  No, he was sorry that the fu....the darned all-star game ended in a tie.  We hate ties because we hate compromise.

The rest of the world isn't like that.  Soccer is the most popular sport in the world outside America, and every single game ends 1-1 and nobody gives a shit.  They're perfectly happy with ties.  Of course maybe that's because if one team wins then the losing team's  fans will burn the stadium down and trample everyone to death, but whatever it is they don't mind ties at all.  They love to compromise, hell the Europeans all even agreed to use the same kind of money.

We used to compromise in politics.  Back before the internet and youtube and pointless blogs like this one, there weren't too many outlets to use to try to sway public opinion in your favor so you could bludgeon your opponent over the head with it.  So we compromised, our leaders actually sat down and discussed issues with each other.  Of course the compromising usually meant we got tax cuts and spending increases and now we have 100 bajillion dollars of debt, but hey, we were all happy.

We hate compromising and now we don't have to.  We can go bitch on the internet instead!  (it's fun, you should try it sometime).

So maybe we can learn a little something from the rest of the world.  Not in sports of course, screw that I hate ties in sports.  But maybe we can set aside our competitiveness a little bit when it comes to politics.  I really think politicians (and us in general) argue so passionately about issues not so much because of how much we believe in them, but because we fffuuuuuu...we really hate to lose.  That fiery competitiveness is what got us to where we are now...an economic and military powerhouse and a complete shit sandwich when it comes to government.

Guns!

Guns Guns Guns.  That's all I see on my facebook anymore.  For whatever reason about 98% of my facebook friends are diehard conservatives and all of you are all riled up about gun control laws.  I think it's time for some common sense analysis of the Second Amendment and how it should apply in modern times.



The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Okay, what are "arms"?  Well, a nuclear weapon is an "arm" right?  I believe we had an arms race with the Soviet Union that involved nuclear weapons, it certainly didn't involve handguns.  So should we allow anyone who would be so inclined to own a nuclear missile (an arm) to have one?  Of course not.  Do you want to allow Donald Trump or Bill Gates or some other rogue billionaire to start stockpiling nuclear weapons?  No, of course not, so the question then becomes, where do you draw the line?

When the Constitution was written, the most powerful weapon in the world was a cannon.  A cannon could fire about 800 yards.  Now we have intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.  Beyond cannons, in the late 18th century there were muskets, rifles, and pistols, and that's about it.  Bearing arms meant you had a rifle, musket, or pistol and could fire maybe 1 round a minute and could be effective at a range of about 50-100 feet.

So when they wrote the Second Amendment, they had these muskets, rifles, and pistols in mind.  Plenty enough to defend yourself but not enough to wreak havoc. 

The scale of weapons has changed quite a bit in the last 200+ years.  Weapons and ammo have advanced to the point where it is relatively easy to acquire an arsenal capable of inflicting massive casualties in a short period of time.  This wasn't the case when our founding fathers declared that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Sorry, but the right to own such an arsenal should be infringed upon just a tad bit.

So what do we do?  On one hand, I get the argument of the gun rights advocates.  All gun laws do is take guns away from those who abide by the law.  You disarm the good guys and the bad guys gain a significant firepower advantage.  These weapons are out there it's just a question of who ends up with them, the good guys or the bad guys.

But here's where that argument falls apart.  There's no reason for assault weapons to be available to the anyone at all.  Good guys, bad guys, law abiding citizens, terrorists, nobody.  Weapons intended to produce mass casualties should only be in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel.  Look, the government already has more firepower than you do.  The idea that people should be allowed to have assault weapons to defend themselves against a government gone mad is mad itself.  The government has nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, an Air Force and Navy capable of unleashing all manner of wrath on your ass if it wants to.  You having an assault weapon is not going to protect you from that.  So drop that argument.  It's not 1776 anymore, the government, the man, has superior firepower over you and can squash any rebellion it wants, no matter how justified it may ever be.  So arguing that the Second Amendment protects citizens rights against a belligerent government no longer holds water.

So what about the rights of citizens, law abiding ones, to arm themselves to protect themselves and others against bad guys?  Not such an easy question.  If we allow law enforcement and the military to have such weapons, and therefore these weapons continue to exist, then these weapons will also fall into the hands of the bad guys.  To me, it's all the more reason to just ban them altogether.  Fuck trying to figure out who's a good guy and who's a bad guy.  Tough shit, nobody gets them.  End of story. 

I don't want your handguns, I want you to have them.  If you know how to use them, I want you packing and ready to protect yourself and myself and others.  I don't want your rifles.  But I want your assault rifles, your mass casualty producing weapons that no person has any productive use for.  You collect them?  Tough shit...collect stamps instead.  You need it for protection from the government?  Give me a fucking break, the government has plenty of ways to kill your ass that your assault weapon is useless against, so give that shit up too. 

There's one more aspect of gun control to address, and it's a legit one.  It's the slippery slope argument.  Take our assault weapons today, and you're just gonna come back after my rifles and pistols tomorrow.  For that, frankly, I have no answer.  For me, personally, getting assault weapons out of the hands of everyone is all the farther I would ever go, I can't promise that the anti-gun faction wont just use that as the beginning of a massive gun-snatching movement.  But I'm a huge advocate of individual rights and I admit that it is a legitimate concern.

The Constitution, as I said, is a brilliant document but it is not flawless and timeless.  This is why the framers of the Constitution included the provision to amend it.  The original Constitution allowed slavery and counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person, and denied them and women the right to vote.  We amended the Constitution to correct these provisions when we found that they no longer suited our attitudes and the realities of the times.  Times change, technology changes, societies enlightenment changes and the Constitution in its brilliance allows for that through the process of amendment.  It is a living document that was always meant to be changed as necessary to adapt to the circumstances of the times.

Politics, Politics, Politics...

The political rhetoric in this country has gotten completely out of hand.  I'm sure this rant is going to piss some people off but I'm gonna say what I gotta say without holding anything back, just like all of you do.  The shit that I see every day from politicians and from friends and others on the internet and facebook is out of control.  You wanna know why there's gridlock in Washington and nothing ever gets done?  Because you can't have a fucking normal decent political conversation anymore, that's why.  What passes as political discourse is nothing but insults, accusations, lies and exaggerations mixed with slander that results in nothing but more division and animosity.

I don't agree with almost anything about President Obama's political views or ideology.  I strongly oppose the forcable redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, pretty much all of the things Obama and the Left stand for fiscally. But I don't think the guy's an asshole.  More importantly I definitely don't think he is deliberately trying to ruin the country.  Maybe you think his policies are detrimental to growth and to solving our problems, and in most cases I would agree.  But to question his intent is outrageous and totally uncalled for.  Show some respect, like it or not he is our President.

I'm not just picking on conservatives, liberals are just as bad.  No, the Tea Party doesn't want children dead just because they support the second amendment.  Conservatives don't oppose socialized health care because they enjoy seeing the poor and elderly die in the streets.  The tone of the last presidential campaign was so antagonistic and disrespectful that it just fueled the already widening gap in this country that makes any real intelligent political conversation impossible anymore.

I'm a Libertarian, so I have plenty of issues and disagreements with both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.  Now I could just sit back and focus on those and rip both sides to shreds and call them names.  I don't, because I realize that a vast majority of people on both sides do want what's best for the country.  Their intentions are just and good.  That's what political discourse should be based on.  Mutual respect.  Finding common ground, working through differences through intelligent conversation and debate.  Not name calling, personal attacks and paranoia.

We want our elected representatives to solve problems and accomplish things.  We don't want them sitting up in Washington bickering and posturing while the country goes to hell in a handbasket.  Well maybe we all need to set an example for them, since they can't seem to figure it out themselves.  Maybe we need to start debating the issues of the day in an intelligent, respectful manner.  A liberal is no less a patriot than a conservative.  Not by ideology alone anyway.  Maybe I'm naive, but I believe all but a select few subversives do care deeply about their country and their fellow countrymen, we just all have different ideas on how to make it a great country. 

Happy New Year Fiscal "Cliff" rant...

This whole "Fiscal Cliff" bullshit is driving me insane.  Let me first make sure I understand exactly what the hell is going on here.  So Congress set itself up with a deadline to get a budget done by making this Fiscal Cliff clause in order to motivate itself to get something done.  If not, a whole bunch of crap happens that nobody wants to happen.  Makes a lot of sense.  I might try this myself.  How about this:  If I don't lose 20 pounds by the end of the year, I'm cutting off my arm.  I'm guessing that's about how much my arm weighs...problem solved.  I suppose if I'm going to be true to Congress' model, I'll wait til December 15th to start dieting and exercising.  

So anyway, now we've supposedly gone over this cliff.  This "cliff" cuts 109 billion in spending from the 3,795 billion that we spend now.  That's a 3% cut (and probably spread out over 10 years, so whatever).  We should cut 109 billion in spending, maybe not in the way this cliff does, but we should.  We should cut 3 or 4 times that.

I could cut about 55 billion of it in one stroke...get rid of foreign aid.  All of it, every dime.  I know a lot of it goes to fight AIDS and starvation and poverty but sorry, we can't afford it.  We're broke.  If my buddy is in a jam and comes to me for help, if I have the money I'll give it to him.  But, if I'm broke, then I'm broke.  Tough shit bro, guess you gotta go find someone else.  Especially if that "buddy" aided and abetted a guy who blew up my house.  Yeah, I'm talking to you, Pakistan, and the 4 billion we give you alone...

Next step, stop sticking our nose in every single foreign conflict that comes along.  We've created our own enemies by doing it in the past and I'm all for squashing those enemies, but in the meantime stop going around making more enemies at the cost of money and more importantly lives.  We could easily save 50 billion a year (out of a 800+ billion military budget) just by doing that.

Next, end this "War" on drugs.  We spend $15 billion a year in order to set up a system where drug demand is met by violent drug cartels in foreign countries and gangs in the US.  You don't see any beer cartels, do you?  Nobody's going to middle schools and high schools trying to get kids hooked on Crown Royal.  There's no money in it for violent criminals because it's legal.  We have laws to deal with those who use alcohol irresponsibly but we don't spend billions criminalizing its responsible use by private citizens in their own homes.  So we save 15 billion more and eliminate drug gangs and cartels all in one shot, not to mention the tax revenue gained.

I'd tell every single government agency, every organization that gets any money whatsoever from the government that they're getting 5% less from now on.  Deal with it.  Fix your own budgets.  Get rid of the waste.  I guarantee you there's not one government agency that doesn't flat out waste at least 10% of what it spends.  I'm only knocking off 5%.

So there you go...5% across the board (190 billion) and 120 billion by cutting out foreign aid, foreign meddling, and the drug war.  And I did that in an hour while watching football.

By the way, Congress...congratulations on your raise...