New age bogeyman

I get that Whole Foods founder and co-CEO is stating his opinion when he says:

But that ethical underpinning has eroded as American society has grown increasingly secular, Mackey said. And with that decline, the trust in both public and private institutions has evaporated.

in this article in the Austin Statesman found here: http://bit.ly/SEDMn4

I respect his opinion but opinion does not equal fact. Secularism is a convenient, and often impossible to prove, bogeyman. One could just as easily argue that naked capitalism without a soul is the result of unabashed greed in an era of relaxed regulatory protections for consumers, investors, and average Joes. Capitalists lost their way because they were finally allowed to behave rationally (rational meaning rational for them, not necessarily society), not because society turned away from Judeo-Christian institutions. I'm not protecting a secularist view, I'm opposed to throwing thoughts and belief systems under the bus out of convenience. If he's right, show it. Saying so doesn't make a belief true or accurate.

Permanent or temporary change?

I was wondering yesterday how soon the collective angst with the Newtown massacre would ebb? Each time one of these awful events happens, the media and its personalities tell us what to think, when to think it (if ever), and when we can get back to normal because it stops being relevant.

I decided that the only real hope for permanent change is for those of us who support reasonable (my definition of reasonable) policy changes, such as banning assault rifles and high capacity clips along with 100% background checks for all purchases, to stop discussing change with a side who will never support anything less than full, unfettered access to any and all weaponry. Including the NRA in the discussion is a guarantee that nothing will change. The NRA has mastered the art of riding out the storm, saying all the right things until we lose our focus and give up.

Like-minded individuals need a counter-balance to the NRA. An organization that will collect and spend, dollar for dollar, against the will of the "let's make every American a militia so we can stop the next Stalin" coalition. This organization has to enable the political viability of elected officials to speak for reasonable change, just as the NRA has quite successfully done the past several decades.

Today I donated to Gabby Gifford's new PAC http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/. I hope her efforts are just one of many attempts to counter-balance the NRA's influence. The NRA and the pro-gun-at-all-cost factions win if we stop caring. It's up to us to let that happen or not, they don't get to decide that and we don't get to blame them if we let our outrage simply go away.

Just in case my one reader sees this post and wonders: I am all for gun rights. I think individuals should be allowed to purchase and use hunting rifles, shot guns, handguns, etc. I even think that folks should be able to own assault rifles, but I would limit the accessibility of these to secure shooting ranges. You can own an AR-15 but it stays at the range. I would also require every weapon owner to be appropriately trained. I often hear the "drunk drivers kill innocents so let's ban cars too" argument as a reason to let this continue. Most states require annual safety inspections, all states require every driver to have a license (including those who bought a car at a car show), and every state requires some amount of insurance. I'd go on but I've already given this idiotic straw man argument too much credibility.

Enable change. It's up to you.

Understanding government debt

I won't do this better than one thousand other bright writers have already done, but I'll add my words to the body of writing just in case any readers missed the obvious. If President Obama "wins" the debt ceiling debate, he will not have $1 more to spend recklessly, after deep thought, frugally, or otherwise. That's not how it works. President Obama can only spend government dollars on things authorized by Congress and signed into law by him, excepting prior outlays and funds already authorized by law, such as standing laws regarding Social Security payments, etc. The debt ceiling debate is only, and I can't stress this strongly enough, only about paying for things ALREADY passed by Congress and ALREADY signed into law by a president. He could mint ten billion one trillion dollar platinum coins, and he alone can't spend a dime on anything new. This would ONLY go towards paying for things already passed by Congress and signed into law. The very same Congress now threatening to wreck a global economy to reign in a profligate spender. Kettle, meet pot. I can't think of any other way to say it. Congress can refuse to send him any authorization or appropriations bills above and beyond what they vote on. He can't mandate that Congress send him anything to sign. He can only sign and execute appropriations they approve. Congress can slow down spending. All they have to do is pass bills that only allocate funds to programs they approve. That's it. Straightforward and simple. Don't include anything in the appropriations process that goes above what they want the president to spend. Of course that means striking out or excluding very specific items, something none of the Republican leadership has been willing to itemize. President Obama can't sign bills not sent to him, and our annual appropriations process is part of this. Congress can also pass bills eliminating security safety nets, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Plenty of Republicans would like to do this. I encourage them to follow their convictions. But they should realize that our republican (as in republic) national government requires majorities, and in most cases super majorities, to pass bills. Figure out a proposed bill that will pass, then do it. In the meantime please shut the hell up about President Obama's out of control spending. It's just not true and no amount of rhetoric can change that fact.

Guns

Starting to notice social media entries discussing reasons why "we" shouldn't consider taking people's guns away. I can't help but notice that anyone suggesting gun control measures is very specific about what to ban or do: magazine clips over 10 rounds, background checks at gun shows, etc. Also can't help but notice that almost everyone saying we shouldn't consider this uses the collective "guns". Scare your side into thinking the other side wants to take away your hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc. so you will go along with protecting your right to own assault rifles and massive magazine clips. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Sensible gun control measures are not a slippery slope to the rise of Hitler II, it just sounds scary. It's also called rhetoric. I propose we also recognize that we already have controls on weaponry. Private citizens aren't allowed to build and wield cluster bombs, ICBMs, or anything else that sounds hyperbolic. The point is, why is it wrong to consider drawing the line somewhere on the side of "not allowing massive killing in short time span" when we already do that? I hate that any idiot can carry a concealed weapon in my state, mostly because I can't protect against that idiot dropping his loaded gun in a theater and accidentally shooting my child. Why not tie concealed carry permits with mandatory training and certification? You know, the kind of training that teaches you not to put a loaded weapon without the safety on in your pants pocket? More guns without mandatory training will lead to more untrained idiots brandishing weapons every time he feels threatened, increasing the odds that said idiot will accidentally shoot me or someone I love. My last word today on this is a question: why does your assumed 2nd amendment right to bear any arm you define as constitutionally protected trump my right to domestic tranquility? 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.

Einstein's grand unified theory

Just noticed that my blog is linked to my Twitter. Now more people can pretend to ignore me in more media than ever.