Shooting Dead Offenders

Ted Nugent defends the 2nd Amendment

I really enjoy listening to Ted Nugent. He is a little over the top, but he remains consistent in his opinions and is able to defend his arguments well. Plus, he and I share a lot of the same outlooks. Honestly, I am displeased with the criminal justice system today and would prefer that the right to self-defense be taken more seriously. Criminals have so many supposed "rights" these days that the victim can be seen as the enemy in some cases. I've said this before and say it again, if someone was to break into my house I would not hesitate to shoot them. I realize that decision may be difficult to face if that situation occurs, but I believe in this outcome so strongly that hopefully it will come as instinct.

If people were required to take gun safety courses and shooting practice courses the number of handgun accidents would plummet. Do you think it's right to let someone drive a car that has no experience or training? The same goes for guns. Educate, don't ignore. 

You would die too...

If you knew how badly your football team is going to get beaten by the Yellow Jackets.

UGA VII Dies

Fire Alarms

Headline: Tech students cause 3 alarms in 2 weeks. Brilliant.

How to be active in politics

Congressman Glenn Nye

116 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

 

Dear Congressman Nye,

I am writing to you to once again impart my feelings about the current lineup of proposed

legislation. While I am disappointed that the Congressional Budget Office managed to

deem the healthcare bill, H.R. 3962, appropriate for enactment, there is still plenty of

opportunity to stop enactment of this program. The principles of the legislation are

inappropriate for America, for nowhere does the Constitution say citizens have the right

to healthcare, nor do they have the right to many of the other things Americans take for

granted. Subsidizing another person's medical costs is not something I wish to do

involuntarily, so any type of expansion to the Medicare or Medicaid programs is

unwelcome in my view.

 

I could outline the costs I find offensive about H.R. 3962 to you here, but I will let the

author of the article I have attached do that.  To our benefit, she is able to succinctly lay

out the consequences of this bill; perhaps you will learn of some new details that you can

reveal to your colleagues in the House and the Senate and perchance open their eyes

about how this program's benefits are severely outweighed by its shortcomings.

 

The most atrocious thing about most of the major legislation Congress has enacted this

year is the cost. I do not wish to spend my life attempting to pay down a national debt

that was created on frivolous programs, nor do I want any future generations to have to

worry about carrying the burden created by irresponsible adults. As an about-to-graduate

engineering student, I see the need for solutions to problems in our world. However,

placing more emphasis on the federal government is not the proper method to carrying

out these solutions. Lowering mandates and regulations on healthcare insurers would be a

great start to reducing the high costs of healthcare, just as refining spent fuel would

provide a long-term fuel source for nuclear reactors to generate power. Rather than

junking the car and buying a new one, let's work efficiently to fix what we have. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Robert Carpenter

NOTE: I printed out and attached the following article: The Worst Bill Ever

 

The Secret is Out

Written by left-winger John Cassidy for The New Yorker:

The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

Many Democratic insiders know all this, or most of it. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.

That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.

Wow, looks like this guy really cares about the future of the nation. As someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable about the economy, how do you justify taxing the rich and businesses heavily, providing healthcare for free, and dealing with costs "later"?

Here is the full article for those who want to hear his full discussion. Mind you, it is devoid of meaningful numbers, as all economics should be: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2009/11/some-vaguely-heretical-thoughts-on-health-care-reform.html

Bike Lock Fail

It doesn't get much worse than this. May as well be unlocked.

Nice Bias

Taken from "G.O.P. Counters With a Health Plan of Its Own"

"In its opening section, the Republican bill, which has no chance of passing, promises to lower health care costs and expand insurance coverage 'without raising taxes, cutting Medicare benefits for seniors, adding to the national deficit, intervening in the doctor-patient relationship or instituting a government takeover of health care.' ”

Way to go, NY Times. I definitely didn't see any proof that there was 0% chance of passing. I guess being factual isn't what reporting is all about.