Archive for the Interesting Category

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses… but legally

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on September 14, 2010 by easilyangered

The 14th Amendment needs to be amended to at very least, require that one parent also be a legal citizen in addition to birth on native soil, this is the requirement for many other countries around the world, and is neither hurting anyone deserving of citizenship, nor helping those who seek to obtain it by less than honorable means. Those who believe the Constitutional protections only extend to US citizens however need to rethink their position. The Constitution assumes that ALL men have inherent rights and does not enumerate them for the people, but rather limits the powers of the government to infringe upon them. To deny Constitutional protections to a person on US soil is to deny their humanity, since their very existence entitles them to the rights of man

Let’s not allow bigotry and xenophobia to lower ourselves by denying people rights based on the location and circumstance of their birth.

I have a perfect plan for the “immigration crisis”:

1.  Seal the borders:  People seem to think this is impossible, but I have a solution.  Why not  redeploy the troops from ending the “combat mission” in Iraq to the US border instead of sending them to Afghanistan to kill more people?  This would be a temporary measure until the remaining provisions of my plan are put into place.

2.  Repeal or alter the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, requiring that in addition to being born in the US, citizenship is conferred only when one or more parents is also a natural or naturalized citizen.

3.  Provide all those who are here illegally an amnesty period where  a temporary citizenship including a legal Social Security Number will be granted, provided they show proof of employment and can demonstrate a basic understanding of the English language, as well as pass a criminal background check.  The temporary citizenship will be for sufficient time required to complete the additional steps necessary for naturalization.

4.   Those that are willing to serve a minimum of 4 years in the US Military supporting our nation, upon honorable discharge will receive citizenship for themselves, their spouse and any children they are claiming as dependants.

5.  Those who cannot meet the employment and English requirements for a citizenship pass will be offered the chance at their own expense to enroll in a program that will teach them the skills to find employment and learn English.  If they are unable to pass the course and become a productive member of society, they will be deported to the country of their birth.

6.  If you are a citizen or an accepted person under provision 2 or 3, you may sponsor residence for any member of your family by blood or marriage, provided you can show proof that you can full support them financially, and medically, provided they pass a criminal background check.

7.  OSHA will be given additional personnel, and the scope of their purpose will be widened to ensure that companies are employing legal people as well as fostering a safe work environment.  Any company or individual found to be employing an illegal resident will be fined so heavily as to nullify any payroll savings that snubbing the law would allow.

8.  Anyone found after the amnesty period violating the immigration laws or any other law while in this country illegally will be stripped of everything they own and escorted to the border and dumped, that’s how they came here, they can get back the same way.

Once the employment opportunities that are enticing people to come here dry up, the military will no longer be needed to patrol the border.


Why is this an issue?

Posted in Interesting on August 7, 2010 by easilyangered

There is a big stink over a “mosque” being built in NY near the site of the trade centers. This is causing controversy.

Part of the perception on the one side is that the Muslim community as a whole does not denounce these attackers and therefore they support the actions. It doesn’t help when our news media shows people in Muslim countries dancing in the streets after the attacks (NM that the footage was possibly old and unrelated to the attacks, but I’m not a conspiracy nut.) This is where the average American perception that it’s all Muslims come from. Keep in mind, these average morons get their info from the same manipulative news media and can’t tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim either.

Another just outright distortion is that this church is being built ON GROUND ZERO OMG!!!
When actually it’s a community center and being built a couple blocks away, but all you need is our wonderful news service to mention that for thousands of years building a temple on an area you conquered has been a common practice and the people get worked up into a frothing rage again, at least until the next celebrity sex tape.

What the media would tell you if they were responsible, is that Muslims don’t hate us, in fact the average Iranian citizen loves America, it’s the crazy government that doesn’t. Iraqi nationals would BEG us to come back and help them from Saddam between the original Gulf War and the 2003 one. But, you’ll never hear this on the news, nor will you hear that Ideology doesn’t make people become terrorists, Iran tried for about a quarter century to get people into a murderous frenzy against the US based on Ideology, but was unable to do so. Where did the 911 Hijackers come from? Our “Allies”, Saudi Arabia, a place where we have troops stationed. al-Qaeda discovered a very simple psychological truism in that it is easy to turn someone into a combatant against a foreign invader, much harder to do it because god said so. I would bet that had America not had troops occupying 137 countries around the globe and didn’t automatically jump to Israel’s defense in every conflict, we could very easily be at peace instead of war.

Anyway, my thoughts: Build a mosque, a cathedral and a synagogue (and whatever other type of church there is) RIGHT ON TOP of ground zero, make them share a common entrance to the area to show the religious zealots out there that this is America, we welcome all people, regardless of faith, and their intimidation tactics only reinforce that and make us come together, not tear us apart

You know there’s more than 2 of them right?

Posted in Interesting on August 6, 2010 by easilyangered

It seems to me everyone knows about the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution. They are the only two that ever get any airplay, occasionally you hear about the 5th, but frankly 1 & 2 are the rock stars. I’ve been thinking about the others a lot though lately and how people’s relative unfamiliarity with them might mean that they are giving up a big portion of their personal rights without even realizing it. So I’m going to give my take on the bill of rights.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice if you will above that the words separation of Church and State do not appear anywhere in this text. In fact you will also note that this pertains to teh Government being unable to deny you the abilities to do these things. You do not have the freedom of speech in a private forum; an internet message board owner can very well deny your “right” to free expression on the servers they are paying for. I do however wonder how states and localities make people get a permit to assemble? Maybe they get around it by the Congress wording up there. I do however think this makes the famous Bush “Free Speech Zones” a very shady practice.

2. 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.
There are a few things I’d like to point out about this one. First, the well-regulated militia part that gun control people like to mention: Well regulated meant operating efficiently. People like to point out the well-regulated section to justify their draconian laws, but seem to always overlook the last part: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If you look into other documents and essays written at the time, and by the same people who wrote and signed the Constitution, you will find they were very much FOR people having the same weapons as the government should an overthrow be necessary. As for those people who want to claim that all they had were muzzleloaders and didn’t foresee the automatic weapons we have, well, I’ll counter that point with they didn’t see email either, does that mean you can’t practice freedom of speech or the press on the internet?

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Don’t even see this one becoming an issue any time soon.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is rapidly becoming one of my favorites. Do you realize that stores can not force you to show your receipt and do a bag check without your consent? If you don’t want to wait in the long assed exit line, just walk right the fuck by! The troubling thing about this is that we submit to searches without probable cause or warrants every time we travel by air. The TSA is terrible. I hate them. I will make another post specifically about these wastes of life and how they make us no safer at a later date.

5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is another one I like. I’m dead set against eminent domain, I think private property shouldn’t be able to be seized for public use except in case of a needed road or other public service. Seizing in order to sell the land to a facility that will generate more tax revenue is reprehensible. As for the Self Incrimination and testifying against yourself portions, I think this video and this one speak for me.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
You have the right to confront your accuser, be represented by counsel, and must be tried speedily and publicly. This is of course if you are a US Citizen, personally I disagree with holding suspected terrorist indefinitely, it isn’t a good practice.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Again, I don’t see many issues with this one, except for terror suspects. This is why the importance of classifying civilians as “enemy combatants”.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Excessive bail, well I guess the judge is free to decide what is excessive, but I wonder for a minimum wage guy, isn’t $500,000 excessive? Isn’t the purpose of bail to insure you go to trial so as not to lose your money, rather than keeping you locked in? Cruel and unusual punishment; I think getting stuck in a place you are sure to get raped is cruel and unusual, why is prison rape a joke and not something we protect our inmates from?

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
now it gets interesting again. People misunderstand the Bill of Rights all the time. They think that it list what rights you have, when in fact, it actually puts limits on what the government can do to you. Also note that it states that because a right is NOT listed here, that does not mean you don’t have that right. The rights belong to the people, not to the government to grant to you. Stand up for your rights.

10. 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.
Notice here that it says if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY grant a power to the Federal Government, that power resides in the states or to the people. This clearly states that the powers rest with the people or the state, not the centralized Government. States should be free to make their own laws, the Fed should stop running roughshod over people’s lives and trying to rule us. that makes us subjects, not Citizens, and HERE is where we get problems.

My cold, dead hands

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on July 30, 2010 by easilyangered

I like guns. I think they’re neat. I think everyone should be able to own whatever kind they want. I think gun control means keeping positive control of your weapon, and making sure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands or get misused. I believe every person should be free to carry a gun if they choose to, wherever they go. I also believe that person should be %100 liable for any mishaps or troubles caused by said carrying.

People are free to use a lot of tools that will cause grievous bodily harm, why should a gun be treated any different? After all, if you murder someone with a hammer, are they less dead than if shot? Are you less of a criminal?

Philosophy aside, look at the practical reasons for concealed carry: A gun is the most effective wat to multiply force in an escalating situation. Most times a gun is used in a confrontation, it is not even fired, just the sight of it is often times enough to cause the aggressor to back down. A gun will allow even the weak to effectively defend against the strong. An armed population is safer, criminals are less likely to attack “hard targets”, this is a basis of every anti-terrorism training ever shown, why would it be different for regular crime? The training states that by being a hard target, you will discourage attacks, well, if criminals are unaware of exactly WHO is armed, they are less likely to prey upon the citizenry. Look at the stories you see in the news, old ladies, women, homes thought to be empty, weak people living at home alone, these are the targets picked by criminals, they never seem to attack gun shops or anywhere they might meet armed resistance. In this way, a person who is carrying concealed makes it safer for the one who chooses not to, just by making the criminal unable to tell if he will meet armed resistance.

A favorite argument of the gun control crowd is that you can always take a self-defense course. My rebuttal of that is this: How long does it take to become proficient in fighting? I know people who take years of martial arts, do you want to tell the woman living in a dangerous neighborhood that in just a few short years she’ll be safe? I can teach her how to safely and effectively use a firearm in an afternoon. Here’s another interesting point to consider, why do boxers and practically all fighting sports have weight classes? It’s because a 125 pound martial artist is no match for a 225 pound one. Just consider how hard your average 9-year-old can punch, do you think you can’t beat up a 9-year-old? A firearm is an effective way for the weak to equalize the playing field whan faced by the strong. Here’s an interesting link. Now, these same panty waist douches will say something like “well the thug will just take the gun away from her and use it against her”. Really? you honestly think it takes more time to pull the trigger than a thug can close with you, grab your arm and wrest the gun out of your hand? A trigger pull takes a couple of pounds of force, it is less than it takes to carry a bag of groceries, you think that wresting a gun from someone’s control is less effort than that? You must be retarded. The most infuriating part of this argument is that it usually made by the same crowd that will go on for hours about women’s empowerment and how a woman can do the same work as a man, yada yada yada. So which is it? Strong independent women, or delicate flowers incapable of defending themselves? My vote goes for strong women.

Another favorite cry of the ever-present liberal ass, is that “We’ll be like the wild west with gun fights in the street!!! BOOOHOOO”. Well, let me share a little insight about the “wild” west: The most famous shootout in the wild west was the OK Corral, it left 3 people dead. Do you know how many murders the average old west town saw in a year? a hundred? a thousand? Try five, the most murders any town saw in a single year .

No one is going to force you to carry if you are afraid of guns, but those around you that will be carrying are the same people you meet on the street, on the bus, your neighbors, or the guy at the deli, none of whom have killed you before, so why would they do so with a gun strapped to their side? They might even intervene when you are in danger.

The most important argument for gun ownership is this (from wikipedia):

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.” Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, “Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.”

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Do you see where I am going with this? If not, educate yourself here and here and here.

Here’s an interesting site for more info.


Posted in Interesting, Uncategorized on July 28, 2010 by easilyangered

So in 2008, when campaigning for the presidency, then senator Barack Obama said he would put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Now, let’s ignore the part about people making promises that won’t be provable until after the term they are running for is over, and focus on something else here.

So the two new exciting plug-in vehicles are the Chevy Volt, and the Nissan Leaf. The cost of these 2 finely engineered (I’m sure, especially the GM) machines are $41k for the Volt, and $32,780 for the Nissan. The Mazda 3 4-door starts at $15,345 and gets 33 MPG. The Volt gets (they claim) 230 MPG on its gasoline generator. Now, at $3 a gallon you can get 8667 gallons of gas for the $26k price difference. That works out to 286,011 Miles. The Volt has a 100,000 Mile Warranty on the battery. So, let’s say you drive your 186,011 extra miles on the volt without needing to replace the batteries, you’ve spent 1300 dollars on gas at this point, but I’ll give you that as worth the cost of smug nods you can give us plebs in our SUVs. The fact is, you’d have to own this car for 15 years with no major repairs needed to BREAK EVEN on the cost of a similar gas-powered vehicle.

Now, let’s get back to Obama’s promise. I forsee that a certain number of liberal hippy douches who are bad at basic math will jump on this vehicle like it’s free tickets to a Grateful Dead concert, but how are you going to get people to pay 2.5x for a car than it’s worth? How is Obama able to promise he will have these cars on the road? He may have them sitting in the lot, getting laughed at while people buy new trucks and Cobalts, but they certainly won’t be being driven.

That’s so F’ing GAY

Posted in Interesting, Uncategorized on July 27, 2010 by easilyangered

I’ve been watching a lot of the HBO show Big Love lately. It’s a show about a family of Mormon polygamists and how they juggle the multiple wives and hordes of children that result from the lifestyle in a world that looks down on their beliefs. The show really has me thinking: Why is Polygamy illegal? Why does the Government care whether a guy wants to marry multiple women in a consensual relationship where he takes care of all his families? The Government certainly doesn’t care if a guy wants to be a cheating scumbag and screw around behind his wife’s back, unless of course there is a child support issue, so why do they care if a guy has multiple families and WANTS to acknowledge and care for the children that result? Why is the Government in the business of marriage anyway? If a guy wants to marry 10 women, a woman wants to marry six guys, two men and two women want to be one big family, two men OR two women want to marry each other, what business is it of the Government?

Now, I understand that there is no actual mention of “Seperation of Church and State” in the US Constitution. The amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Which oddly enough is the polar opposite of what those trying to ban mention of God in commencement speeches and such think. Those people who ban mention of God are actually violating the second part about prohibiting the free excercise thereof, however, that is the subject of a future post I think. Anyway, people want to separate Church and State whenever possible, then why are they letting Government intrude into what is regularly referred to as “Holy Matrimony”? Shouldn’t a Church be free to decide who to marry? If your church wont’ marry you for being a polygamist, or (the actual point of my whole rant) GAY!, why not just choose a church that will? Why doesnt the Government have to be involved at all? Well, I have a theory:

Presently, the tax code allows for a single man, single woman union. Should we start to redefine marriage, all the sudden, people will be able to claim all kinds of new exemptions, and the Government might lose out on some tax money!!!!!!! OH NOES!!!! People might be able to find new ways to skirt the income, capital gains, or estate taxes, and we can’t have that!!!! after all, the way the current system works, it’s only people’s civil rights that get violated, so no big loss right? Instead, let’s resort to typical Government obfuscation techniques of riling up people’s base religious beliefs, prejudices, and bigotry to divide the nation over an issue that is fundamentally about personal freedom. After all Mr. Religious, how does it really hurt you if two guys want to pound each other officially or on the “down low”? Either way, you’re going to dismiss them as people regardless of their accomplishments, feelings, influence, etc, so why not just let them be free?

By deflecting the issue of personal freedom and trying to make it about “decency,” religion, bigotry, or “abuse of the system,” the Government can continue to avoid being held responsible yet again.

Quit being sheep, people; you are being led by wolves.

The environment

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on July 22, 2010 by easilyangered

I don’t buy the environmentalist movement. I don’t believe humans are causing global warming, or even that climate change if it is happening is that big of a deal. I do however have some thoughts.

First, don’t try to convince me you can predict that climate change is going to result in more hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters if I can’t get an accurate 5 day forecast on the news. Scientists can’t even predict whether it’s going to rain tomorrow with any more accuracy than a magic 8 ball; so sorry, I don’t believe you can predict increased disasters for the next 100s of years.

Second, I’ll assume for this point that you are correct about man-made climate change: If it is true, you are going after the wrong people. If I drive an SUV, the amount of energy I am wasting and pollution I am causing is insignificant compared to what the Government wastes. I’m in the Navy, I can’t even count the number of times a ship I’m on has dumped hundreds or thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, or improperly thrown garbage overboard. Here’s an issue that is a problem with the way the Navy conducts business altogether: A ship has to get fuel in certain amounts, which is in the thousands of gallons, they can’t just pull into the gas station to top off. So, what this means is the Captain will end up running the ship at full speed in circles in the ocean, just to burn enough fuel that he can go to the tanker. Yeah, you read that right, they purposely waste tens of thousands of gallons of fuel just so they can load more fuel on. The reason for this: it’s faster and less of a hassle to fuel at sea than in port.
Another problem is the amount of unnecessary deployments we do. Why does the Navy need to sail all over the world all the time? Is it for some outdated show of force? The Cold War is over, who are we showing force to? Why do we need 11 carrier battle groups when the rest of the world has one? How about the amount of ordinance and ammo that is wasted in training? that releases gasses and CO2 into the atmosphere, why do we do that so much? I would think a smaller military that doesn’t deploy in times of peace, and isn’t occupying foreign land would be a better use of legislation than restricting the types of cars free citizens can buy.
Another way the government wastes energy is by never shutting off their computers at the end of the day. How many hundreds of thousands of computers are on, wasting electricity, when there is no one there to use them? They claim this needs to be done in order to push out updates overnight as to not interrupt daily use, but how hard would it be to schedule the updates on one day every week, and only leave the computers on that evening? Or, how about just pushing the updates out at lunch time, allowing users to delay them if they are in the middle of a project?

Third, Biofuels. Let’s get serious about them. A diesel engine can run on used cooking oil, did you know that? Know why more people don’t do it? Because diesel fuel has a color additive in it to determine what taxes have been applied to it. If you are inspected and found to be running blue (home heating) fuel in your vehicle, you get fined for not paying vehicle fuel (which is red) taxes. How much used cooking oil do you think the restaurant industry gets rid of every year? It’s a waste product, it has to be disposed of a special way due to its being hazardous. Why aren’t we trying to refine it into fuel?
Another thing on biofuels, we need to lift the embargo on Cuba. Why? They produce a LOT of sugar. Sugar is used in the making of biofuels, also it is better for you than the High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) that is used in almost everything the US eats. We use HFCS because of our surplus of corn. We subsidize farmers to not produce too much corn, and a lot of what we do produce we send overseas in foreign aid. Here’s my thought: Let’s make biofuels from all of our corn, we allow our farmers to produce their full potential, thus providing a better market for them, and freeing up the subsidy money for other things. Also, we can cut our foreign aid and become the largest biofuel producer in the world.

My point is this: It is harder to convince people to give up things they like or to change their lifestyle, than it is to get them behind changing government. Why not turn your efforts to the Government, and allow private citizens to live their own lives as they see fit and can afford? After all, if the Government refuses to make changes to support your cause, how much of their support are you really getting?