It Isn’t About You – Do The Right Thing

Every angry response I’ve seen about Spike Lee, responds to this analogy.

It’s like, yelling at the ref for pointing out that the football pile up is crushing people at the bottom, while the people jumping on top of the pile are whining that it isn’t their fault and they hurt too.

Spike Lee’s wealth or actions are utterly irrelevant. White people being “forced” to move into these neighborhoods, is a broader issue of increasing housing costs, but that doesn’t erase the more important and dire problems effecting the African American community.

I get it, white guilt makes people defensive. I lived in Bedstuy 2005-2009, I even walked by gentrification protests in the neighborhood. I worked part time and it’s not like I had any other options. I could get defensive about the issue. I could take it personally. But I don’t.

Instead, I understand that the people in those neighborhoods have gone through more hardships and have bigger problems than I have had and they were there first. Those things are just true. The issues Spike Lee talked about are not about him, are not about me, are not about you, it’s about African American communities and neighborhoods.

Advertisement

Racial Gap in Men’s Sentencing

Racial Gap in Men’s Sentencing

“Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.”

See! People just need to stop talking about race. So when that judge decides how to sentence someone, he’ll have no idea that the person he’s sentencing is black or white because no one told him. If we don’t talk about subconscious, systematic racism, laws and behaviors…things will just fix themselves.

(How did such a stupid idea get traction?)

Native Americans & Guns Were Not Friends

As I’ve said before, the Pettifog was created to focus my energies of rage and annoyance, from places like Facebook, into a blog. Then, those posts, I would hope would encourage others to discuss them. Partially to avoid being defriended by more people. The latest thing to enrage me, was this photo

.

Let’s just think about, for one second, about the general history of Native Americans’ interaction with these new settlers and governments. Europeans came over to North America with guns. These guns allowed them to easily slaughter the unarmed Native American population and helped drive them from the area. Those Native Americans who eventually got a hold of weapons, eventually attacked settlements and forts, resulting in casualties all around. In no way, was the gun ever a force for safety or peace for the Native Americans or settlers at this time. Giving Native Americans more arms, would have lengthened the fight between Native Americans and settlers, causing a drawn out civil war. Once again illustrating that more guns, equals more death.

This history specifically represents the tyranny of those with guns, and the unnecessary mayhem they cause.

To try to pick one incident, claim that if they had guns things would have gone better for the already ravaged Native American populace…seems reductive and absurd.

How We Pay for Spending Cuts

The one thing that is the most annoying about the sequestration, is how it hurts us. As citizens and voters.

When you think of it, the deficit works in our favor. The government is providing services, subsidies that lower prices for us, keeps things running smoothly….and we aren’t taxed at a level to cover those expenses.

Essentially, that’s the debt. It’s us getting more than we pay for.

I have been references the “Dairy Cliff” as an example. Due to forced cuts, the price of milk was going to go up 400% to around $8. So because it was cut at the government level, I would be spending $6 more every paycheck.

The sequestration is the same thing, but many times worse. Higher prices for everything. Less services provided.

Spending cuts won’t “cost” the government anything, but they ultimately will come out of our pockets and our backs.

Mental Illness + Guns

“He had never been legally adjudicated as mentally ill, and, even if he had, Arizona at the time had over 121,000 records of disqualifying mental illness it had not submitted to the background check system.”

Mark Kelly, on wife, Gabby Gifford’s shooter.  (6 Things We Learned at the Senate’s Big Guns Hearing | Mother Jones)

Let’s stop pretending that people who want guns,  have been  psychologically evaluated prior to owning a gun. They haven’t. My family member with a gun, in my opinion, has big anger and paranoia issues, but I doubt he’s ever been in front of a psychologist in his life. This is true of most gun owners. They’ve never been adequately screened like most people who are trained and hired to have guns (security firms, military, police, etc).

Even if there are incidents on record, a lot of the time warning signs are not automatically included in background checks or are they are not considered disqualifying factors.

So, making sure those things happen are essential.

“Are the presid…

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”

The text of the new NRA ad that’s making the rounds.

First, the idea of TSA-ing our schools is one of the biggest nightmares I can think of, but I agree with the NRA in one sense. That if there are armed people out “protecting” citizens, that said gun owners should be put to the same standards as those armed security guards protecting Obama’s children.

I think every armed person, should go through the same in-depth background checks, psychiatry evaluations, training, and reviews that a security firm of this level would implement.

Progressives for Les Mis!

I hate to be “that guy” that sees everything through the political lens, but watching Les Mis really made me think about the importance and longevity of liberal and progressive causes. And about how in so many areas we’ve started going backwards.

Valjean & The Law:

• Imprisoning people for non violent offenses.
• Harsher punishment than the crime would logically dictate.
• Putting convicts to hard labor like indentured servants.
• Criminal record preventing new employment.
• No preparation for prisoners to be reintegrated into society,

Fantine:

• Employer using an employee’s personal information, outside of said job, and deciding it’s immoral, with negative repercussions (Hello Hobby Lobby!).
• Sexual harassment
• Access to health care for tuberculous.
• Not to mention general difficulty with poverty, and supporting a child without assistance when you lose your job.

Cosette:

• No one cares about her and she’s irrelevant to anything.

There is Not A Spending Problem

There is a line that gets bandied around by Republicans when talking about the debt: “It’s a spending problem” they yell, “spending needs to be reigned in. It isn’t taxes, it’s spending!”

Where is the truth in that? When asked repeatedly, Romney could offer no specifics of spending cuts. Democrats gleefully assumed it was because any proposed cuts would hurt the middle class and thus lose him votes. When Obama asked for spending cuts again from Republicans, they too refused to come up with anything. You would think that if government was just “wasting” money, you could point to those places.

Let me suggest why there are no spending cut specifics…there is no extra spending to cut. Admittedly, you can fidget with some numbers, find a few million here and there. In the end  though, there is no minor cut that can make a dent in the deficit.  Most of what the Simpson Bowles suggestions for discretionary cuts have already been put in place. Which leaves cutting some big chunks, out of the costliest parts of our budget, as seen here:

Where is the spending problem in this graph? If you’re a conservative, you may point at Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Yet really, are these a “spending problem”? These programs have mostly been paid for. Unlike defense spending, most and nearly all of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is already covered in our budget. Because we pay for them from our payroll checks. For the most part, they add zero dollars to the deficit.

I will admit, each of these programs have long term issues that could eventually lead to big problems, but the issue is not “government largess” it is about systematic issues. The reason Social Security is unsustainable, is not because of mismanagement, it isn’t because of spending. It’s just the birth rate. No one anticipated that there would be a baby boom followed by unprecedented low birth rates. Medicare is a similar story, medicare is a great program that’s helped millions…but the price of health care is just getting too high. It’s increasing at a level much higher than inflation. No one anticipated that kind of health care cost.

So, when conservatives talk about a spending problem, it’s a problem based on unforeseen circumstances, with entitlement programs which generally don’t add much to the deficit. You could say there is a cost problem, but there is not a spending problem.

What’s left that we can really point to to prove that there’s a spending problem? Is it really the measly amount we give to the arts or NPR? Is it really small inefficiencies? Instead, I would say that it is about unavoidable recession conditions, defense costs which are pure spending in the budget, along with the lowest tax rate in 30 years.

If Guns Were Cars

I always hear the now trite argument comparing cars to guns, “Cars kill more people than guns, but we don’t ban people from driving!” This is of course a silly thing to say, first on the premise that we will never actually get rid of guns, second that cars are for drivin’, guns are for killin’.

Yet, I was intrigued…

Let’s follow the analogy. Cars are dangerous. We don’t apply gun laws to cars. So let’s apply car laws to guns. Let’s look at, “how to legally drive a car”, and apply those things to “how to legally shoot a gun”.  Some of these are in place, but not all of them.

Before we get to even think about driving, car companies cannot make whatever car they want. They have to fit very specific regulations, as designed by the federal government.  http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html

So any car that is deemed unsafe for the driver or general public would not be allowed to be manufactured and sold in the United States.  This would be your “assault” weapons ban and mandatory safety features.

Now, I can’t just go out and start driving legally. Instead, I have to go through classes that take probably more than a month. Additionally, I have to go through hours of driving practice. Then, once I get that certificate, I can take it into a state office. There, I have to prove my identity with birth certificate and social security. I may have to pass another driving test, another written test, and go through physical tests like eye exams.  Again, if I ever want to “legally fire a gun”, then I would need to do all these things for guns.

Next step to “legally drive”, I would need a car.  Now I can get my hands on that federally regulated car! First, every car is registered. Every car has a VIN number. If I ever buy a car, I must get the title. Then, I must then register it with the state and continue re-registering. I also have to take it to a state approved garage to have it checked. So…same with guns, each gun must be registered and checked every other year or so. If it is deemed unsafe, then it is taken out of commission.  You can’t sell a gun, if you don’t have the official title. If your gun is unregistered or reported stolen, then you go to jail for years…just like a stolen car. These procedures would need to be followed no matter where you bought the item. Gun show, online, or a new dealer.

There are all sorts of laws of where you can go and what you can do with your legal car. Then there are the rules of the road. You have different rules in a school zone than a regular road. You can’t drive something like a big truck on certain roads. Different rules based on where you are and restrict whether you can drive there.  Just like the “gun free” zones.

Then, I’m required by state I am required to pay for auto insurance to help protect others and myself. It’s hard to subsidize the emotional damage done by guns to people, but maybe the insurance would cover hospital bills?

Yes cars are dangerous, and we have a bunch of laws at every level to minimize that danger. So yes, let’s make these the laws if you ever plan to legally buy a firearm and plan to ever use it for any circumstance. Just like, you would have to follow these rules for a car, if you ever wanted to drive it for either a one-time errand or a long road trip.

Tax Hikes Won’t Hurt ‘Em

“This analysis finds no conclusive evidence….to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year reduction in the top statutory tax rates and economic growth.

The Non Partisan Congressional Research Center…again.

So Republicans complained about a study, which said tax hikes on the rich wouldn’t really hurt the economy, they complained until they took down the report…then the Congressional Research Center updated their findings…with the same conclusion.