Bad governance

I've noticed, recently, a larger and larger percentage of people have started simply ignoring laws and doing what they were planning to do anyway.  Only a small minority of that group happens to be violent criminals. 

We have huge majorities of people ignoring gun registration laws in their states--far too many to prosecute.

We have increasing minorities of legitimate, peaceful, otherwise-law-abiding gun owners noting that most mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones, and beginning to do the common sense thing for their own safety, and ignoring legal postings.  And nobody catches on, because hello, concealed carry.  

We have whole states decriminalizing drugs that the federal government still consider illegal.

Hundreds of thousands of people are simply...ignoring bad law that steps on their own personal freedom.  There aren't enough prisons in the country to deal with all of them. 

Same with a whole lot of EPA over-regulation of private property, like the twunt that confronted a Florida homeowner to tell him that the "barbecue smell" and smoke from his grill was not allowed to leave his property.  Or the new regulations of wood-burning heating stoves. 

The federal government has forgotten a few different things that it learned during Prohibition (when most people were ignoring a major law that had been amended into the very Constitution): you can't legislate morality, and never pass a law that you know won't be obeyed. 

Seriously, the only thing the government is doing is ensuring that the people no longer respect the rule of law.  And that...that's the first step in making sure the government loses the consent of the governed.

We are not Europe.

Recently, New York passed a law that states that "assault" rifles must be registered with state authorities.  I recall reading in the article that followed it up some time later that less than 20% of "assault" rifle owners in the state registered their rifles.  I'm pretty sure it was probably fewer than that, should all of the facts be known. 

Connecticut, after Sandy Hook, passed something similar, swearing that they only wanted to know where they were.  I'm pretty sure more registered there than in New York, but probably not as many as they'd've liked. 

And now, they're sending out confiscation letters.  Granted, they're only sending letters to those they think own an evil murder rifle, but I doubt the rest are far behind. 

The government officials involved in this stupidity are forgetting something: those that meekly registered their rifles like they were told may be sheep, but those that chose to disobey the law that ran contrary to their rights stated in and protected by the second amendment are likely to use those very rifles to protect themselves and their rights from a tyrannical government. 

They've also forgotten that Concord and Lexington were prompted by a government gun grab. 

In the twentieth century, there have been numerous gun grabs throughout Europe and Asia: The Ottoman Empire in 1915; the Soviets in the '20s; the Germans in the '30s; China, Uganda, Guatemala, and Cambodia through the second half of the century.  In each case, gun registration was near-immediately (within a year or two) followed up by gun confiscation.  In each case, the citizens meekly and lawfully turned over their arms.  And each case was followed up by massive numbers of people murdered by the very governments they turned their guns over to.  Millions.  Tens of millions.  Mostly either minority ethnic groups, persecuted religious minorities, or political rivals. 

Many Americans are both aware of this and wary of this happening here. 

This nation was founded by men and women who keenly felt the injustice of a hereditary political class that controlled their lives to a huge extent, and thus, left for freer pastures.  Though some two hundred years of political neglect--almost entirely benign--those who made this land their home learned to govern themselves, and learned to like the freedom to be left alone that they'd found here. 

In the early 1770s, that freedom started to be constricted.  The people were treated very unfairly (see the Declaration of Independence for further detail), and it chafed.  In 1775, the British government decided to quell the rebellion it could smell brewing before it got started, and misstepped.  King George III either didn't realize, or forgot, that the American colonies were made up of steel-spined malcontents that clanged when they walked.  And, in trying to seize the means for the colonies to defend themselves, triggered the very rebellion he feared in Concord an Lexington. 

Americans in 2015 are, for the most part, descended from these men who laid their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor on the line.  We are not sheep. 

And, most of all, we are not European. 

We will not lay down our God-given rights to defend ourselves just because some chattering, inbred nitwits in the hereditary political classes that have grown like a tumor in the heart of our nation tells us to.

Oh, for fuck's sake!

So.  Obama's minions are attempting, once again, to take over the roles of parents in telling kids what to do, what to buy, and how to live.  This time, the EPA cut loose with a PSA telling kids to shop at thrift stores for school clothes, to use recycled products as school supplies, to use paper and plastic bags taped to the outside of their books in leiu of the cool book covers available at office supply stores and Walmarts, and to not take more than one packet of salt, pepper, or ketchup, or more than one napkin.  

I get my kids new clothes.  I remember having nothing that came new from the store (except underwear, which my mother rightfully thought gross getting second hand), and I remember how badly I resented that. 

I also remember the attempts at bullying that only failed because I've got thicker skin than a rhinoceros, as well as a harder head.

I ate school lunches every day--my sister and I got free lunches, and sometimes we couldn't afford to take lunch even if it was something we didn't like.  And even when we could, Mom couldn't be arsed to help us pack one.  Sometimes the only thing that made them palatable was a butt-ton of salt, pepper, ketchup and mustard.  Many days, the lunch ladies would remind us to grab several of the tiny, inadequate napkins because the food was going to be messy. 

My son, picky eater that he is, takes peanut butter--no jelly; he doesn't like it--sandwiches for lunch every day.  Three slices of bread, slathered in honey peanut butter and folded over.  Takes two sandwich bags.  He also takes a juice box, which gets thrown away.  

Yes, I covered my books with paper bags that I then covered with doodles. There were no book covers available, and no money available for them. 

When it gets to that point, I'm going to let my kids pick out their book covers.  Yes, they'll have to pay for more than just the basic out of their allowance, but the options will be there.  And if they'd rather use the big roll of white butcher paper we have, and cover their books with doodles, that'll be fine, too.

However.  Having the EPA sticking its nose in to tell kids to buy second hand clothes, use recycled trash products, and to take only ONE packet of each condiment and napkins reeks.  "You shouldn't want nice things.  If you do, you're an elitist, and shame on you."*  "You should accept trash for your belongings."  "You shouldn't take [blogger's edit: make?] more than your fair share." 

Who the fuck do they think they are?  The nation's parents?  Seriously?  The only ones who have the authority to talk to my kids like this are my husband and me.  Maybe their teachers, depending on exactly what is under discussion. 

*Tell that to the race-baiters (and white trash, from my experience, which can be just as bad in the "Oh, so since I'm poor, I'm not good enough for name brands?" attitude) in the free shit army whining about being asked to take RoseArt supplies--which I liked better than Crayola, when I was younger--that Angel blogged about.

Honestly don't know how to react, here.

On the one hand, I love the judge's order that the deadbeat babydaddy stop procreating.

On the other...that's the executive judicial branch of government (thanks, Odysseus) poking its nose into a private individual's life and personal decisions. 

I don't know which I want to support: blocking babymaking by an individual who's proved to be an inferior provider to his children (making us pick up the tab), or the libertarian side that says it's not the government's business.

Great idea!

I'm sure Mayor Bloomberg will love the idea of a $15/hour minimum wage for fast food workers!!  It will lead directly to those dangerous institutions of delicious, salty, fatty food that those stupid poor people eat too much of shutting their doors because they can't afford to stay in business!  Or else they'll have to get rid of their brilliant $1 menus, which is how a lot of homeless manage to make minimum daily caloric intake for basic maintenance.

The stupid fuckers walking out don't seem to realize that they've just quit their job, and likely won't find another at their skill level (nonexistent) in this economy.

And here's to the new normal...

Did you know that your annual physical is now "free"*?  Yep, glory be to the 0ne who passed the bill that will eventually drive all health insurers out of business, and will force each and every one of us to submit to government control.

Speaking of such, did you know your doctor is now required to ask about your lifestyle during this visit?  Things like "your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts"--and they're required to make sure your answers are in your still-private (for now) medical record (my answers to these questions will all be the same: "It's none of the government's business.") 

But they're not going to be allowed to listen to new concerns you may have about current issues that may be moving out of control, or any new issues.  Basically, they're being told to ignore your health, and focus on whether you're doing what the government mandates you should be doing.


*Disclaimers: your free annual physical only involves conversation with your doctor concerning current, managed conditions.  No other concerns may be discussed, and new conditions are not covered.  You will be required to reschedule your appointment to discuss any new concerns, and pay out the ass to cover your doctor's uncompensated expenses for your "free" annual physical.

Wow...

So, since unemployment is so high (and, I would assume, everyone is so badly unqualified to do the work needed), Baltimore has come up with a...unique...solution:

Baltimore’s City Hall is mulling a controversial new mandate that, if passed, would require any business with a city contract of "at least $300,000 or any project that gets a city subsidy of at least $5 million to hire Baltimore City residents for at least 51 percent of new jobs.”

So...this is going to be like something I witnessed while I was in grad school.  A student had a twin sister who applied for (and got) a job at a clothing chain at the mall.

Two weeks later, she was fired.  She was told that she was only hired because she fulfilled a diversity quota that the company had been checking the week before she was hired.  She was fired because they didn't need her to be a token black worker anymore, and she could barely run the register, couldn't count back change, and figuring how much something a certain percentage off would cost when asked by a customer.

How is Baltimore's requirement going to be any different?

News flash: person who couldn't swim drowned when thrown into deep water!

Seriously.  Our government looked at Canada and Britain, at their health care system, and their doctor shortages, and thought, "Yeah, baby.  That's just what we need over here."  The media, enamored by the idea of a single-payer system where no one has to pay for their own treatment (but everyone has to pay the taxes that pay for everyone's treatment), not only overlooked, but tried to bury the information that our system isn't going to be any different: expensive, cumbersome, inefficient, and deadly to those who need it most.

Those who wanted Obamacare went further than just trying to bury the facts: they openly mocked those who tried to make clear what the nation was getting into.  And they threatened those who were openly against it in congress. 

Still, almost 70% of the American people polled said that they didn't want it, or anything like it. 

We've had that violation rammed up our collective national ass, regardless.

And now, the media has the chutzpah to be shocked, shocked, that a hospital system is instituting mass layoffs in preparation for the massive jump in costs that they're facing. 

Has anyone ever seen what happens amongst those on Medicaid?  How they treat doctors and hospitals?  How they clog the emergency rooms because they don't want to pay for anything out of their own pockets (and have no clue--because they never see a bill--how much more an emergency room visit costs)? 

Now, think about how it's going to be when everyone is forced onto Medicaid by ever-increasing insurance premiums, insurance companies going out of business, and the only going concern is "single-payer" health insurance. 

And now, imagine that with about half the medical staff in hospitals. 

This is what we have to look forward to.

"Your papers, please..."

This is getting ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  Anyone who wants to smoke is going to have to present a specific license that allows them to buy cigarettes?  One that limits how many cigarettes a person can buy? 

Are they trying to recreate the conditions that permitted organized crime to flourish in the 1920's and '30's? 

Here's another "Hell, yeah" moment

“Think about this, a 31, 32-year-old-law student who has been a student for life, gets up there in front of a national audience and tells the American people, ‘I want America to pay for my contraceptives.’ You’re kidding me. Go get a job. Go get a job, Sandra Fluke.”--Rep. Joe Walsh

Amen, Representative Walsh.  I've paid for my own contraceptives--and my own prenatal care, and one of two births (insurance covered the other, since it was early)--out of my own pocket.  I've paid out of pocket for my insurance and my medical care since I was nineteen years old. 

She's not much younger than I am: I turned 33 this year. I do not understand how someone can be content to remain a child* for their entire life.

She is a failure.  I bet her parents are downright proud of their daughter. 

*A child is someone who expects others to take care of them.  In those younger than about 18, they have the right to.  Those older than that, and not mentally or physically defective, but continue to expect to be cared for should lose their right to vote.

Good try.

The whole Malthusian fallacy is alive and well; however, the enthusiastic supporters of that particular junk science are trying it again.  This time, they're wailing that there won't be enough water to grow food for nine billion people--well, not unless we all go vegetarian, like, now. 

Umm...I'm not buying what they're selling.  I'd like to remind said individuals that the world is 75% water.  Yes, all but one or two percent is salt water, but we have technology that can deal with that.  And brains that can improve that technology.  Or improve the crops to where they need less water. 

So, yeah: false premise, false results.  Garbage in, garbage out. 

Then again, these are also the people that believe that all it will take for Marxism to work is to put them in charge. 

I've been making this argument for years, now.

I will admit, John Stossel, with his reach, has a much better chance of convincing people, but he doesn't say anything in his article equating the war on drugs with Prohibition that I hadn't been saying for a long time. 

Legalize it all.  Regulate it all.  Tax it all.  Stop telling us that it's bad for us, so we can't use it.  Everything is bad for us, in sufficient volume.  Refusing to let people make their own choices about drugs is insulting to their independence and intelligence. 

Too few? Try too many.

The feds are whinging that people are looking elsewhere for ways to make ends meet than to the bloated entitlement programs that they offer. 

Alright.  I get that unemployment is 8% officially, and more like 16+% in reality, but 15% dependence on government programs is way too high, especially since only about 51% of the population are actually paying for those programs. 

Wait a tic...if only 51% are paying into the system, doesn't that mean that 49% are, by definition, dependent upon the largess of the federal government in one way or another, rather than the claimed 15%?  Wow.  Guess that's like the unemployment numbers.

Benjamin Disraeli was right.

Who didn't see this coming?

First, they came for the smokers...and we didn't say anything because we didn't smoke, and it was none of our business.

Then, they came for the drinkers...and we didn't say anything because we didn't drink.  Too much. 

Then they came for the fatties...and we didn't say much because we acknowledged that we could stand to lose a little weight.

Now, they're trying to define gun violence as a "public health issue" so that they can put pressure on us to become the serfs they imagine us to be.

I hate to tell them this...well, that's a lie.  I will proclaim this boldly, proudly, and at the top of my lungs, as often as it needs to be said: I will not permit anyone to remove my right to protect myself and my family.  I will not permit the government that works for me to penalize me for being a (for the most part) law-abiding citizen.  I will not give in.  I will not surrender.  I will not abide by any law or social engineering that will not affect any but the law abiding. 

I will not give up my guns.  Nor will I pay any penalty to be "permitted" to keep them.  Nor yet will I accept discrimination in my workplace, my health insurance (which is separate from my job), my home insurance, or my property tax. 

The government, in all its infinite wisdom, the doctors in all their concerned busy-body nosiness, and anyone who agrees to abide by whatever the two come up with can go fuck themselves. 

Hmm...

I didn't know that Rahm Emanuel was a trained ballet dancer.  That he was in ballet from a young age explains so much about him.  So often, so many kids who were bullied when they were young turn into bullies when they get even a shred of power. 

I hadn't made the connection between that and the current social programming against people who smoke, and people who are overweight until I read this article, but it makes so much sense.

Someone needs to design a study correlating victims of bullying with the leftist liberal mindset.  

Yet another good idea whose time has come.

Republicans want to cut the $80 billion food stamps cost productive citizens by cracking down on abuses.  They rightly want to spend more on maintaining infrastructure than supporting leeches.

Of course, Democrats are terrified it'll reduce their voter base harm those who need it:

"Democrats led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York are resisting a proposal by Agriculture Committee leaders in both parties to trim a modest $250 million from the program each year by cracking down on abuses.

They say that would deprive about half a million households losing an average $90 a month in food aid."

When college students go on food stamps so that they can afford their alcohol habit and their gourmet, organic rabbit food, that is an abuse of the system.  When single moms refuse to feed their kids so that they can afford fake nails, weaves, and designer clothes, that is an abuse of the system.  When individuals buy a pack of gum with their SNAP debit cards so that they can get cash back, that is an abuse of the system.

Interestingly enough, most of the groups named above tend to vote Democrat to keep their paycheck for breathing.  Without Democrat support, they'd have to get jobs.  Without Democrat support, they'd learn just how much the rest of us hate supporting their nasty, worthless asses. 

And without the Democrats supporting their choice to keep being worthless wastes of resources, they'd have to become productive members of society, or starve. 

Personally, I'd love to see more people actually facing the consequences of their choices.  Maybe then, stupidity would be a bit less endemic. 

Of all the stupid...

I've got three stupid bans for you:

• Pennsylvania is banning "secret" compartments in vehicles, defined by something added after-market for whatever reason--but they're only illegal if they're added for illegal reasons.  In other words, you could add a small safe for money and valuables because you travel a lot, get pulled over in PA, and they could confiscate everything in your safe because you can't prove you didn't have it added to smuggle drugs.

• Cambridge, MA, is trying to prove that they're bigger nannies (and believe that their people are dumber and more totally lacking in will-power) than NYC--they're trying to pass a ban on any sugar sweetened drinks at any restaurant.

• You know how if you cut an apple a certain way, the seeds look like a five pointed star?  Well, apparently, if you cut a tomato in the same way, the flesh of the fruit and surrounding seeds form a cross.  Which, according to some idiot RIFs, means it's a Christian food, and Muslims will go to hell for eating it. 

'Bout the only dumber ban I can think of right off the top of my head is the one banning drop rail cribs.  You can't even legally sell one at a yard sale.  Sorry, but I'm short--under 5' tall--and the fixed rail cribs are either too high for me to put a sleeping baby down on the mattress without waking it, or too low for the baby to be safe from falling out once they start being able to stand up.  So, because some parents were so fucking stupid they couldn't follow instructions (installing the drop rail hardware upside down, which let the rail fall out, and let the baby squeeze out and smother between mattress and rail), they assume all of us are that dumb, and forbid us from using a product that is perfectly safe if assembled correctly. 

Actually, now that I think of it, I think I can sort of understand that ban.  I mean, I just revised my text books to add pictures because my students can't follow written instructions.

God help this country.

I have an idea.

Let the busybodies in NYC ban what they want--drinks, popcorn, or things like milkshakes and lattes--but make sure the bans apply to them, as well, and don't ever let them off Manhattan Island!  Turn it into the nanny-state paradise they seem to want it to be, then lock them in to the lifestyle they created for themselves.

I doubt they'd be able to either hire or breed anything like Kurt Russel's character, so we'd never have to worry about that set, at least, ever again.

Inaccurate, misleading reporting, or a complete inability to comprehend a study summary?

This makes me wonder.  The headline reads "Sugar can make you dumb, US scientists warn"--however, that's not the conclusion I took from the summary of the study.  Yes, the rats that had only high-fructose corn syrup added to their drinking water didn't retain what they'd learned, but the other group didn't have just plain water, but omega-3 fatty acids added to theirs. 

Honestly, the way I read it implied that the group with the omega-3s added to their water also had the high fructose corn syrup, but that detail was omitted by the reporter that wrote up the story.  I'd have to see the actual report written by those who did the study to be sure.  However, since the selection and omission of details is something I teach in my composition classes, I can usually recognize when someone is using that tool in spinning something to support the views they don't want challenged.   

I strongly suspect that this is another attempt by the big government "you will eat your hair shirt and like it" Puritanical food nannies to control what we consume, and how much. 

Freakin' food nannies...

So.  2% milk is considered junk food in Massachusetts.  I suspect chocolate milk, even skim, is beyond the pale.

And now, bake sales won't be allowed on school property as school fundraisers.  Why?  Because the kids are fat, by government definitions of "fat" (which aren't accurate in the slightest, by the way), and they don't get enough recess and P.E. time to make up for the lack of outdoor time at home because both Mom and Dad are working their assess off to pay the taxes, keep a roof over the kids' heads, and any food at all (the cheapest and easiest of which is real junk food, not government defined junk food that isn't) on the table.  In that order.  

Seriously, I think they've got a much bigger problem than selling brownies to other parents on weekends on school property.  It starts with "government" and ends with "intervention."

Then again, it's kind of what I've come to expect from the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.