The "Efficiency" of Government

In the wake of the mass murder in Connecticut where 20 children and seven adults, including the shooter, died, various politicians from both sides have been looking at doing “something” about these shootings. The most often “solution” is to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 but expired in 2004.

Do you realize that the assault weapons ban would not have stopped the assault in Connecticut? Adam Lanza, identified as the shooter, had three weapons. Two handguns and an assault weapon. The assault weapon was found in the back seat of his car, unused. So how would an assault weapons ban saved anyone at the Sandy Hook school?

During the assault weapons ban for ten years, there was no discernible difference in violence involving guns. The difference between incidents seems to be the same as the difference between a plane crash and a car accident. It’s been well established that flying is the safest form of transportation. But when a plane goes down, it can take a couple of hundred people. You can’t get that many deaths even in a bus accident.

I’ve heard many so-called news reporters and radio talk show hosts asking why anyone needs assault weapons. They aren’t designed for hunting season. They are only designed for mass killings. I’ve heard them say that those types of weapons should only be for those in the military and law enforcement.

Are the military and law enforcement exempt from having someone lose control and start shooting up a crowd? Did I just hear a huge gasp that I would dare suggest that the military or law enforcement would ever do anything untoward? Well, I remember early in the Iraq war that a soldier killed several fellow soldiers because he didn’t want to be there. I seem to remember a shooting in Fort Hood by a soldier and in fact a counselor, psychologist or something in the psychological field, where over 30 people were shot and 13 dead. I also seem to remember a cop in Illinois, I believe that was being tried for killing several wives.

I don’t know that assault weapons were used in any of those, although I think one was used in Ft. Hood, but why should I have to be accurate in defending weapons when pundits and politicians aren’t accurate about banning the types of guns used in Connecticut?

So why are politicians now so anxious to ban certain types of weapons when those weapons have nothing to do with the shooting in Connecticut?

There is an answer to the question “why are these weapons available” but those that disagree will not give a direct answer. Their answer will be, “you’re paranoid” or “you’re an extremist” but they will not have a direct answer. My answer to why these weapons are available is because the other guy has one.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

I AM LIVID!!!

What the hell is wrong with people?!!?

Another shooting in a school! This time at an elementary school. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, a man ( I use the term loosely) walked into an elementary school and apparently shot his mother and the students in her classroom. At least 20 children are dead six school officials and the shooter. The shooters mother is dead and it's being reported that the someone the shooter lived with is dead.

This happened at 9:40 a.m. I turned on my radio and unfortunately, Geraldo Rivera was on. The first conversation I heard on his program was about guns and their legality. That's probably where this will go as it does after all shootings. They'll want gun control. How well has that worked so far?

There are 15 day waiting periods. Requirements for getting a license to carry a concealed weapon and on and on. All of these controls and licenses and checks on people carrying weapons and wanting to buy weapons and still people are being massacred in movie theaters, schools, shopping malls, and churches or temples (and I don't give a rip which religion it is, it's WRONG!), military institutions, and shopping centers where Congress members are speaking.

Another 22 children were slashed by someone wielding a knife. This took place in China, also today.

In Washington we have the President and the Speaker of the House that are saying the other one isn't being serious about solving the so-called "fiscal cliff". The leader of the Democrat Party in the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is "bored" with all of this.

In Michigan we have Union thugs beating up reporters because they work for Fox, and older folks in a tent set up as an advocate for Right to Work, have their tent pulled down on top of them.

Where is the respect for human life? Where is the respect for the elderly? Where is the respect for others opinions that may not agree with your own opinions? What the hell is wrong with people in this country and around t he world?

Young children and the elderly are the least able to defend themselves, but we're having it proven to us over and over that we are all defenseless against someone that is bound and determined to cause harm to large amounts of people unless we are allowed to defend ourselves.

The police aren't called until something has happened. In what appears to be ten minutes time (the time it took for the police to be called and arrive at the scene) 27 people are dead!

We depend on these schools to teach and protect our children. Obviously our protection isn't working. Rather than side on the side of gun control laws, I'm more interested in people arming themselves to protect those that they are responsible for and those around them.

Do you need further examples? Think back to the day we were attacked. September 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked. One flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. One flew into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. One flew into the Pentagon. None of those were rescued, nor deterred from their targets by any government entities. The police, the national guard, the air force. Not one of those agencies did anything to protect where those planes were headed nor the people on board.

Another plane was headed for the Capitol. None of those government entities saved the people on board that plane. However, the citizens of this country that were on the plane did step up. They took back the plane and while it crashed in a field in Pennyslvania, and all were dead, those citizens actually protected the government!

Senator John Kerry admitted that he sat there frozen in the Capitol when he heard of the attacks happening. Suppose those citizens on that plane hadn't fought back. He could be dead now if not for citizens of this country. How many others were in the Capitol building that could have died had it not been for the passengers on that plane saving their lives?

Nearly 3,000 dead on that day and the only ones who's lives were saved were government officials in Washington D.C. and they were saved by American Citizens fighting back against the terrorists.

Imagine if even one teacher had been armed. One school official had been armed. Maybe the same amount would be dead. But then again, maybe not. Maybe the gunmen would have been the only dead one.

There is no perfect answer. But when given the chance to defend oneself, there is at least a chance that lives would be saved.

But what we're likely to get is politicians that will say "if there are no guns, we will prevent these things from happening." Where's your proof?

This country has serious problems. From the lack of leadership, to the lack of a moral center any longer. One thing is certain. If you think the government is going to protect you, the proof is not there.

These idiots that want to perpetrate mass murder know that the best place fo them to accomplish their desire is to go where the most people are assembled together. Schools, churches, shopping malls and even our own military installations. We need to counteract the idiots by being smart, not be becoming idiots in a different way.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Right To Work in Michigan

The Michigan Legislature passed the Right to Work Law in the State of Michigan today and Governor Rick Snyder signed it this evening. This makin Michigan the 24^th state to be a right to work state.

Michigan is the birthplace of the United Auto Workers and home of the Auto manufacturing in this country making the Right to work law an unexpected event. But it really shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Governor Snyder cautioned the Democrats and the Labor movement earlier this year not to push Proposal 2 which was to add Collective Bargaining as a right in the Michigan Constitution. He warned them it could lead to a push for Right to Work in Michigan. It’s generally thought that Snyder didn’t want to get into this battle and didn’t want to deal with this law, but his hand was forced because the Democrats went ahead with their proposal and lost.

Unions and hard core Democrats have been fighting this law for a long time. They call it the Right to Work for less. Even President Obama was in Michigan yesterday calling for the law not to be passed.

12,000 protestors showed up in Lansing today against the law. The story has led the news locally and become a national story. Many of those were quoted saying that this was all about union busting. Some said that it wasn’t fair that their union dues would go to pay others benefits and of course they have the usual ones saying that wages will drop and Michigan will become like a third world country.

There is a lot of hype, but not much in the way of accurate information. So, let’s take a look at some of this.

Right to work for less. This is one of those word games. Yes, in most of the right to work states, workers do make less than in other states. It costs a small fortune to just exist in New York. The cost of an apartments in New York can be more than owning a house in the Midwest. This is why we use the Cost of Living Index (COLI). Living, eating, sleeping in Alabama is much less expensive than the industrial states.

On the other hand, we can look at the unemployment rate. In Right to work states the unemployment rate is lower than the union states. Not quite a full percentage point, but still lower.

The auto companies are building their plants in right to work states in the south and not in Michigan, which has always been the car making capitol of the world. So what good will it do to have a union if you don’t have a work place to have a union?

It’s unfair to use my union dues to pay for others benefits: The irony in this statement is just too hard to pass up. The other big issue of the day is the “fiscal cliff”.  The President wants everyone above $250,000 income to pay more taxes because they can afford it. The argument is that they should give more to help the country. But what happens with that money that is collected? It’s given to people that won’t work. Yes, the government helps those that are down and out for various reasons, and there are many in that position now due to the governments lack of discipline in managing the nations finances. But money is also given to those that want to be lazy and don’t even try to better themselves. In non right to work states, if you don’t join in the union within a certain time frame, you don’t’ get to keep your job. This is confiscation of union dues. Even if you don’t join the union, you must pay union dues. Still confiscation of union dues. So it’s not unreasonable to consider union dues just like another tax. Where does the union dues go? A tremendous amount of it goes to the Democrat Party. Is it not unfair to apply money that one person pays to a party that they don’t want to help fund?

So I don’t feel sorry for the ones that complain that others are using their money to fund others after years of the others money going for things they wouldn’t support.

This is all about Union Busting!: There is not one word in the law about ending unions. In fact, this is an opportunity for unions to be better than they’ve ever been in history. I expect that the first thing that will happen is that many will drop out of the union as soon as they are allowed to in April of next year in Michigan. Those will be the ones that haven’t wanted to be part of a union in the first place. That’s only natural.

Another thing that will likely happen is that many union members that want to be union members will see that their co-workers that are no longer paying their union dues are still getting the same from unions as they themselves get and they too will drop from the union. Why stay in the union if you can get the same representation and not pay for it?

There will be another group that will see that their union dues is actually another bill or tax and first they’ll ask that their dues not come out of their paychecks. Then they’ll not pay the bill when it comes.

There will be those staunch union members that will always pay their union dues regardless of current events or expenses that they have. They are proud to be in the union and happy to pay.

It these unions are smart, they will act between the first event happening, which they won’t be able to stop and the second event listed which they could stop by changing their ways. I don’t believe the unions are smart. I think they will waste tremendous time and resources fighting the new law in court and not prepare for the future and the opportunities they have with the new law.

They could put together a package of perks for their members. Discount Health Cards. Maybe some competitive college scholarships for children of their members. There’s any number of things they could put together as part of being in the union.

They will also have to change their ways regarding management and discipline of employees that get into trouble. Ironically, today 13 Chrysler workers got their jobs back due to the grievance system with their union. In September of 2010 they were fired after being caught by a local news crew on tape, smoking dope and drinking while on break from their job. It was reported on the news and they were suspended then fired. They filed a grievance through the union and today (of all days) they got their jobs back after two years. An arbitrator found there wasn’t enough proof of what they were doing and ruled in their favor. Chrysler now has 13 more workers that may or may not be drunk or high while building our cars, back on the job. This type of representation has to change if these unions want membership and respect.

It will probably take a vote of the rank and file to bring in new leadership that will work towards these goals to make the unions more palatable to both worker and management.

They have an opportunity to move forward and be better than ever, or they can keep screaming about union busting and crying about workers earning less when they won’t be.

Michigan will start getting more businesses here in the near future due to the Right to Work law and that means more people will have jobs. Unions would be wise to partner up and take advantage of the additional workers and make their existence viable rather than whining and crying about being picked on by the people’s representatives in this state doing the people’s bidding.

I'm going to say one more thing in closing. Protesting. It's a right we have to protest what our leaders are doing. But, we do not have the right to destroy property of the state or other people's property nor to assault other people including the police. Tearing down the oppositions signs while carrying their own signs, is wrong. Each side should be permitted by each other to hold their signs or set up their signs without fear of vandalism. The union people did just that by tearing down the oppositions signs. 

There were arrests today when protesters attacked the police and things got violent. Peaceful protest is fine and I believe should be encouraged. But violent protests are only showing that you believe the other side has no right to their own opinions if they differ from yours. Those violent protesters did absolutely nothing to further their cause with their actions. They only showed how intolerant they are of others opinions. 

Unlike those violent Union protesters you’re welcome to comment.

Brett