The Ragin' Man knows he has one subscriber to this blog. Let's face it, the Ragin' Man had a relatively popular Myspace political blog using a character for a while in 2006-2007, and he just uses this one to vent. The Ragin' Man would have to follow a lot of blogs and pimp his blog, and let's face it, he's got too much stuff going on. The venting helps make the Ragin' Man less raging because he sees blatantly obvious cases of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance and can't let it go. Here's a case in which the Ragin' Man going to ask my one reader and anyone else who stops by a question at the end.
The Ragin' Man was reading an article online and saw something that normally causes a ruckus occurred this last week. President Obama walked out of a briefing into a room full of campaign donors and spoke to them with his mic on. One CBS reporter was listening in on the feed and taped it all.
What is probably most notable about this "hot mic" is the President said almost nothing noteworthy to the press. This is most easily explained by the American press living on gossip and political ramification over detailed analysis and fact. What is often reported on were President Obama's statements about his refusal to allow the Republicans to mess with the Affordable Care Act in any budget deal.
What is not often reported is a sentiment the Ragin' Man has shared with his Congressman about his own sudden concern for the deficit. The Ragin' Man has even asked Tea Baggers about this very thing, because according to the polling they elected or supported these same policies. The quote that won the Ragin' Man was this:
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, so it's not on the level."
This is the question the Ragin' Man is asking you. How can someone who never spoke out or voted against any of the above things without proper funding/cutting, supported a Vice President who said "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," and in most cases demonized the one Republican who did, John McCain, for being a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) claim to have any care about the deficit without sounding like a hypocrite?
The Ragin' Man has repeatedly attempted to get his own Congressman who has the same voting record to admit he was wrong at the time or is just a complete hypocrite now, but to no avail. The Ragin' Man has a horrible representative.
It should be noted that in 2000 the Ragin' Man was a Republican, and went independent in the following years because of the deficit issue and the Iraq war falsehoods that were fairly apparent to anyone watching at the time.
So what do you think? Is the Ragin' Man crazy, or are these people just massive fuckups who refuse to acknowledge anything they've ever done?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say?
There has been a big move among the right wing of this country to abolish the reading of the 2nd Amendment. Just so we're all clear the 2nd Amendment, in full, states:
"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."
You're saying "Ragin' man, I know that. Keep and bear arms. I get it." Well, you've already missed the point. Our "Founders", who have become increasingly deified and monolithic in recent right wing cultural movements, wrote a precursor to the statement about keeping and bearing arms.
"Yeah, that thing about a militia. What does this have to do with the National Guard Ragin' man?" I'm glad you asked because it has almost nothing to do with the National Guard. In an effort to make themselves seem important, and add a little esprit de corps, the National Guard has promoted itself as the natural outgrowth of early militias in the United States. This is only partially true, and covers up an existing truth: a lot of National Guards are not even their state's militias.
I was born and raised in Illinois. My father was in the Army Reserves and my brother was in the National Guard. My other brother and I never served in either of these institutions, but we were every bit as much the members of Illinois' militia.
Article XII Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution states:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."
Why would this be the case? Illinois has a National Guard, so what is the purpose of this militia? It's a vestigial article that is necessary given the writing of our federal Constitution. War to our founders was something completely different than it is today. You only need to look at the role of the Army as far as the Constitution is concerned to see what the role of an Army was.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 states Congress shall have the power:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Sounds reasonable? Well then why does Clause 13 state:
"To provide and maintain a Navy"?
Obviously the Army was supposed to be a short term proposition, whereas the Navy was going to be long term. The writers of the Constitution lived at a time when the United States was separated from the military powers of the world by quite a distance. Essentially the Army of a free state was a defensive mechanism only. The Navy was necessary to secure trade against piracy and other sea faring nations. There is also an English distrust of standing Armies, but for the purposes of this we'll just all accept that there is a pretty good basis to assume the founders didn't envision them.
How does this lead us back to the 2nd Amendment debate? Well, the militia was obviously a concern of the founders since they had made no provision for maintaining an Army. They clearly saw a need for it to be "well regulated" and understood that it had a place in a "free State". Why would they think this?
Well it's important to note that the Constitution was ratified in 1788, 12 years after the Declaration of Independence and 5 years after a the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary War. The previous form of government, the Articles of Confederation, sought to keep the status quo of the colonies along with stopping what were the reasons behind the need for independence. What was the status quo? Well, it's important to understand that each colony was started for a different reason. Georgia was started as a debtor colony, Maryland was for Catholics, and New York was the spoils of taking from the Dutch. It became apparent that the decentralized movement that led 13 colonies to win independence, but left Canada to the British, was an ineffective form of government. How could it? Who would help a nearby state that was made up of people who couldn't even hold office in their state out of the kindness of their heart?
What came out of this realization were calls for a constitutional convention, which featured several competing views on how the government should be formed. Glenn Beck assures us that our founders were a monolithic group who agreed on the nature of the new nation, but that was not the case. It was not even the case on what this new Constitution really was. James Madison thought the separation of powers guaranteed freedoms to the people, but his close friend Thomas Jefferson lobbied for the inclusion of guaranteed rights.
Among these guaranteed rights was the ability to overthrow the government should it become too tyrannical. This war would not be made by militias as they are generally composed today. It would be made much like our Civil War was carried out, by states who resolve on their own to take on what they viewed as an overstepping of power by the federal government. The colonies had done the same to the King in England by voting for and signing a Declaration of Independence, not by simply running a guerrilla campaign against the King until he was unable to project power onto the colonies.
Now, if we all agree that the militia is to be run by the individual state and that it is an important defensive function of the state, then what does that say about the 2nd Amendment's reading by the right?
Well, if we are to suppose that a "free state" has a "well regulated militia" if we take away the state's ability to determine what the makeup of their militia will be, we have become, at the very least, an unsecure free state.
"Sure Ragin' man, but how does this apply to today?" The representatives of the people of the District of Columbia attempted to regulate their militia by denying handguns to it's citizens. Their reasoning can be called into question by anyone on either side of the debate, but the necessity of a well regulated militia to security of a free state cannot, if you are to believe the Constitution.
Justice Antonin Scalia was not informed of any of this when he wrote "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," because if he had he would understand that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment states clearly that it is up to the state to decide the makeup of their militia.
I watch a lot of right wing news sources, and I can't believe the guy who wrote that is statistically likely to be liked by this lady:
"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."
You're saying "Ragin' man, I know that. Keep and bear arms. I get it." Well, you've already missed the point. Our "Founders", who have become increasingly deified and monolithic in recent right wing cultural movements, wrote a precursor to the statement about keeping and bearing arms.
"Yeah, that thing about a militia. What does this have to do with the National Guard Ragin' man?" I'm glad you asked because it has almost nothing to do with the National Guard. In an effort to make themselves seem important, and add a little esprit de corps, the National Guard has promoted itself as the natural outgrowth of early militias in the United States. This is only partially true, and covers up an existing truth: a lot of National Guards are not even their state's militias.
I was born and raised in Illinois. My father was in the Army Reserves and my brother was in the National Guard. My other brother and I never served in either of these institutions, but we were every bit as much the members of Illinois' militia.
Article XII Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution states:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."
Why would this be the case? Illinois has a National Guard, so what is the purpose of this militia? It's a vestigial article that is necessary given the writing of our federal Constitution. War to our founders was something completely different than it is today. You only need to look at the role of the Army as far as the Constitution is concerned to see what the role of an Army was.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 states Congress shall have the power:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Sounds reasonable? Well then why does Clause 13 state:
"To provide and maintain a Navy"?
Obviously the Army was supposed to be a short term proposition, whereas the Navy was going to be long term. The writers of the Constitution lived at a time when the United States was separated from the military powers of the world by quite a distance. Essentially the Army of a free state was a defensive mechanism only. The Navy was necessary to secure trade against piracy and other sea faring nations. There is also an English distrust of standing Armies, but for the purposes of this we'll just all accept that there is a pretty good basis to assume the founders didn't envision them.
How does this lead us back to the 2nd Amendment debate? Well, the militia was obviously a concern of the founders since they had made no provision for maintaining an Army. They clearly saw a need for it to be "well regulated" and understood that it had a place in a "free State". Why would they think this?
Well it's important to note that the Constitution was ratified in 1788, 12 years after the Declaration of Independence and 5 years after a the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary War. The previous form of government, the Articles of Confederation, sought to keep the status quo of the colonies along with stopping what were the reasons behind the need for independence. What was the status quo? Well, it's important to understand that each colony was started for a different reason. Georgia was started as a debtor colony, Maryland was for Catholics, and New York was the spoils of taking from the Dutch. It became apparent that the decentralized movement that led 13 colonies to win independence, but left Canada to the British, was an ineffective form of government. How could it? Who would help a nearby state that was made up of people who couldn't even hold office in their state out of the kindness of their heart?
What came out of this realization were calls for a constitutional convention, which featured several competing views on how the government should be formed. Glenn Beck assures us that our founders were a monolithic group who agreed on the nature of the new nation, but that was not the case. It was not even the case on what this new Constitution really was. James Madison thought the separation of powers guaranteed freedoms to the people, but his close friend Thomas Jefferson lobbied for the inclusion of guaranteed rights.
Among these guaranteed rights was the ability to overthrow the government should it become too tyrannical. This war would not be made by militias as they are generally composed today. It would be made much like our Civil War was carried out, by states who resolve on their own to take on what they viewed as an overstepping of power by the federal government. The colonies had done the same to the King in England by voting for and signing a Declaration of Independence, not by simply running a guerrilla campaign against the King until he was unable to project power onto the colonies.
Now, if we all agree that the militia is to be run by the individual state and that it is an important defensive function of the state, then what does that say about the 2nd Amendment's reading by the right?
Well, if we are to suppose that a "free state" has a "well regulated militia" if we take away the state's ability to determine what the makeup of their militia will be, we have become, at the very least, an unsecure free state.
"Sure Ragin' man, but how does this apply to today?" The representatives of the people of the District of Columbia attempted to regulate their militia by denying handguns to it's citizens. Their reasoning can be called into question by anyone on either side of the debate, but the necessity of a well regulated militia to security of a free state cannot, if you are to believe the Constitution.
Justice Antonin Scalia was not informed of any of this when he wrote "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," because if he had he would understand that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment states clearly that it is up to the state to decide the makeup of their militia.
I watch a lot of right wing news sources, and I can't believe the guy who wrote that is statistically likely to be liked by this lady:
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Ragin' Against Pro-Lifers
I was cruising around Facebook on the internets loaded on my computer (I have the WHOLE thing) and I saw this article. It's about a woman in Iowa, Christine Taylor, who fainted while pregnant and fell down a flight of stairs. She subsequently admitted to an emergency room nurse that she was having a very hard time with her life (due to money and marital problems) and had thought about either aborting the child or giving it up for adoption. As a result of this conversation the nurse alerted a doctor who also spoke with Mrs. Taylor and then had her arrested for "attempted feticide" which is a crime under Iowa law. Christine Taylor was held in jail for two days before being released due to her status as being in the second trimester and not the third, as the hospital believed. Apparently "feticide" can only be committed by trying to break your neck during the third trimester, and not the second.
Now, let me start off by saying I'm a pro-lifer who understands the need for choice. In short, I understand we are a nation of laws and freedoms, and some freedoms are necessary evils. I don't understand why anyone would want to abort a child unless there was some threat to the mother/horrible circumstance surrounding the conception.
That all being said what happened to this woman is unconscionable, and is sadly the preferred method of the pro-life movement. I would encourage anyone interested in this debate to watch the movie "12th and Delaware" for it's evenhanded portrayal of an abortion clinic and the "pregnancy center" across the street. The documentary shows several women who go to either place, and some that go to both. The strategy taken by the abortion clinic is just to lay out the facts of what they're going to do, but the position of the Catholic run "pregnancy center" was to tell you that what is in your body is a human life and urge you to bring it to term.
What is most interesting about the women who seek or get abortions is that they are not often concerned with the actual birth of the child, they are concerned with how they will care for the child should it be born. The "pregnancy center" does little to help out those seeking abortion besides giving them toys for a newborn.
If I were a pro-life leader this would be my new platform:
1) I would try to get adoption portrayed on major TV shows as something that a woman of any age can/should do with no consequence. The majority of people seeking abortion are not showing. Adoption is always an option, but let's face it, every time a woman walks down the street with a big belly every other woman asks her about how excited she is and if the child's room is ready. There is a huge stigma with putting a child up for adoption.
and
2) I would get away from the Republican Party. Work on getting childcare credits/more programs aimed at allowing for a working mother/2 parent working household to function. Just focusing on getting the child out of the mother denies the reasons for abortion.
So, next time you're standing on the side of the road holding a picture of an aborted fetus how about dropping the sign and volunteering some time as a big brother/big sister or giving money to some organizations aimed at helping care for kids. You'll probably be helping the cause more than locking up every pregnant woman in America ever can.
Now, let me start off by saying I'm a pro-lifer who understands the need for choice. In short, I understand we are a nation of laws and freedoms, and some freedoms are necessary evils. I don't understand why anyone would want to abort a child unless there was some threat to the mother/horrible circumstance surrounding the conception.
That all being said what happened to this woman is unconscionable, and is sadly the preferred method of the pro-life movement. I would encourage anyone interested in this debate to watch the movie "12th and Delaware" for it's evenhanded portrayal of an abortion clinic and the "pregnancy center" across the street. The documentary shows several women who go to either place, and some that go to both. The strategy taken by the abortion clinic is just to lay out the facts of what they're going to do, but the position of the Catholic run "pregnancy center" was to tell you that what is in your body is a human life and urge you to bring it to term.
What is most interesting about the women who seek or get abortions is that they are not often concerned with the actual birth of the child, they are concerned with how they will care for the child should it be born. The "pregnancy center" does little to help out those seeking abortion besides giving them toys for a newborn.
If I were a pro-life leader this would be my new platform:
1) I would try to get adoption portrayed on major TV shows as something that a woman of any age can/should do with no consequence. The majority of people seeking abortion are not showing. Adoption is always an option, but let's face it, every time a woman walks down the street with a big belly every other woman asks her about how excited she is and if the child's room is ready. There is a huge stigma with putting a child up for adoption.
and
2) I would get away from the Republican Party. Work on getting childcare credits/more programs aimed at allowing for a working mother/2 parent working household to function. Just focusing on getting the child out of the mother denies the reasons for abortion.
So, next time you're standing on the side of the road holding a picture of an aborted fetus how about dropping the sign and volunteering some time as a big brother/big sister or giving money to some organizations aimed at helping care for kids. You'll probably be helping the cause more than locking up every pregnant woman in America ever can.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Ragin' Against The Rules
Prepare to be blown away!
What, you ask, could make me be blown away? Well, you, let me tell... you.
Check out this video.
What you just watched was an exchange that took place on the House floor on 30 March 2011. It was between Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Representative Charlie Bass (R-NH) who was acting as Speaker of the House.
As to the facts of what Congressman Weiner was saying:
The bill Congressman Weiner is talking about was H.R. 471 or the "Scholarships for Opportunity Results (SOAR) Act" which was introduced by what was most likely a tearful Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on the 26th of January. It is the only bill he will introduce this year. The bill is basically a school voucher program for the District of Columbia. It is supposed to provide vouchers to underprivileged children so they can attend private schools. It should be understood that school vouchers have been a pet project of the Republican Party for years. The program is not a classic school voucher program though. Whereas school vouchers are generally accepted as you get a check for the amount of money the government pays for your education, and you are free to take that check to whatever institution you choose, this program gives federal money that would not otherwise come to the student and allows that student to attend a private institution with federal dollars. It's essentially a "stimulus" school voucher as it injects money into the local educational system only when someone uses the program.
The CBO estimates that the cost of the bill would be $300 million from 2012-2016, a very small sum of money when compared to the deficit as a whole. Keep in mind that the bill has been in place since Fiscal Year 2004, and this is essentially a re-authorization of funding, so it does not fall under the federally mandated "Pay-as-you-go" law that requires all new expenditures be funded.
However, according to the new rules of the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives made their pay-as-you-go restrictions even stricter so that any new spending had to be taken from something else as new revenues were not to be considered. The House rule reads:
"10. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of either---
(A) the current year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years following that budget year"
I tried to prove Congressman Weiner wrong, because he's smug, and I don't like that level of smug being allowed to roam free. The exceptions to this rule deal with emergency spending resolutions, clearly not within the realm of a school funding bill. Since this would increase funding for the current year (as the fiscal year begins in October) and the 4 years after this, the bill clearly violates CUTGO.
Essentially what you just saw was a group of people (Republicans) who were brought to power because they told you their opponents (Democrats) were not following the rules. As a result they made all kinds of rules to make sure that the rules were followed.
I'll be honest with you, I wondered how anyone could govern with all those rules being passed. As someone who minored in Political Science that has maintained a lifelong interest in politics at the practical level I understand that almost nothing is black or white, and compromise and pork makes the wheels turn.
All that being said, if you're going to pass the rules, you need to follow the rules. Now, the real question is "When are all those guys shouting Nazi at Barney Frank going to turn that on John Shimkus?" The answer is, they won't, and that's why I rage.
What, you ask, could make me be blown away? Well, you, let me tell... you.
Check out this video.
What you just watched was an exchange that took place on the House floor on 30 March 2011. It was between Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Representative Charlie Bass (R-NH) who was acting as Speaker of the House.
As to the facts of what Congressman Weiner was saying:
The bill Congressman Weiner is talking about was H.R. 471 or the "Scholarships for Opportunity Results (SOAR) Act" which was introduced by what was most likely a tearful Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on the 26th of January. It is the only bill he will introduce this year. The bill is basically a school voucher program for the District of Columbia. It is supposed to provide vouchers to underprivileged children so they can attend private schools. It should be understood that school vouchers have been a pet project of the Republican Party for years. The program is not a classic school voucher program though. Whereas school vouchers are generally accepted as you get a check for the amount of money the government pays for your education, and you are free to take that check to whatever institution you choose, this program gives federal money that would not otherwise come to the student and allows that student to attend a private institution with federal dollars. It's essentially a "stimulus" school voucher as it injects money into the local educational system only when someone uses the program.
The CBO estimates that the cost of the bill would be $300 million from 2012-2016, a very small sum of money when compared to the deficit as a whole. Keep in mind that the bill has been in place since Fiscal Year 2004, and this is essentially a re-authorization of funding, so it does not fall under the federally mandated "Pay-as-you-go" law that requires all new expenditures be funded.
However, according to the new rules of the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives made their pay-as-you-go restrictions even stricter so that any new spending had to be taken from something else as new revenues were not to be considered. The House rule reads:
"10. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of either---
(A) the current year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years following that budget year"
I tried to prove Congressman Weiner wrong, because he's smug, and I don't like that level of smug being allowed to roam free. The exceptions to this rule deal with emergency spending resolutions, clearly not within the realm of a school funding bill. Since this would increase funding for the current year (as the fiscal year begins in October) and the 4 years after this, the bill clearly violates CUTGO.
Essentially what you just saw was a group of people (Republicans) who were brought to power because they told you their opponents (Democrats) were not following the rules. As a result they made all kinds of rules to make sure that the rules were followed.
I'll be honest with you, I wondered how anyone could govern with all those rules being passed. As someone who minored in Political Science that has maintained a lifelong interest in politics at the practical level I understand that almost nothing is black or white, and compromise and pork makes the wheels turn.
All that being said, if you're going to pass the rules, you need to follow the rules. Now, the real question is "When are all those guys shouting Nazi at Barney Frank going to turn that on John Shimkus?" The answer is, they won't, and that's why I rage.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Traffic Robocops
Anyone who knows the Ragin' Man knows that he hates cops. Kind of ironic since at one point the Ragin' Man trained police officers, but the Ragin' Man digresses.
I read a story on Yahoo! News about one South Carolina town along I-95 (the major north-south corridor along the east coast US) installing traffic cameras that send tickets to motorists who speed. Here is an excerpt about why they did such a thing:
"Ridgeland Mayor Gary Hodges said the cameras in his town about 20 miles north of the Georgia line do what they are designed to do: slow people down, reduce accidents and, most importantly, save lives."
Sounds reasonable enough right? I mean who wants to cause accidents or take lives? Well here is how the article describes the process of being ticketed:
"Earlier this month, Ridgeland Police Officer David Swinehamer sat in a van beneath an overpass as a radar gun in a thicket of electronic equipment outside clocked passing vehicles: 60, 72, 73, 67.
I read a story on Yahoo! News about one South Carolina town along I-95 (the major north-south corridor along the east coast US) installing traffic cameras that send tickets to motorists who speed. Here is an excerpt about why they did such a thing:
"Ridgeland Mayor Gary Hodges said the cameras in his town about 20 miles north of the Georgia line do what they are designed to do: slow people down, reduce accidents and, most importantly, save lives."
Sounds reasonable enough right? I mean who wants to cause accidents or take lives? Well here is how the article describes the process of being ticketed:
"Earlier this month, Ridgeland Police Officer David Swinehamer sat in a van beneath an overpass as a radar gun in a thicket of electronic equipment outside clocked passing vehicles: 60, 72, 73, 67.
Then a Mercedes with South Carolina tags sped by going 83 — 13 mph over the speed limit. A camera fired and pictures of the tag and driver appeared on a monitor in the van. The unaware motorist continued north, but could expect a $133 ticket in the mail in a couple of weeks."
To paraphrase Nicholas Cage in the movie "The Rock", how in the name of Zeus' butthole does this help "slow people down, reduce accidents and, most importantly, save lives"? If this were to actually perform those functions the police officer in question would have to stop the driver and tell him to drive slower. If the reasoning behind why we force motorists to drive within a speed limit is that "it is unsafe to drive above the speed limit" that police officer has done nothing to make the road safer as the driver was not even informed he could kill or maim at his current pace. He won't even be informed for 2-3 more weeks!
Now I'm sure you're saying "I'm with you Ragin' Man, but we all know you really rage. Like dark side of the Force rage. This seems pretty lame for rage." Well, let me show you something else that these traffic cams do.
I first read about this in Easyriders. It's a story about 6 towns that were caught shortening yellow lights in order to raise revenue from their red light cameras. In a few instances there is some doubt as to whether the lights were shortened on purpose, but this story cements the nature of the stop light cameras.
The pertinent lines from this article are
"City officials agree the cameras, which monitor and record red-light violations, are working. Violations, accidents and injuries are down. But so are citations, which help pay for the automated ticketing program that can cost some cities more than $400,000 a year to Norcross-based LaserCraft.
The drop in citations is due, in part, to a state law that went into effect Dec. 31 that mandated a one-second addition to the yellow phase at all camera intersections."
So if lengthening the yellow light makes for less accidents and municipalities just want to protect their citizenry then why doesn't ever municipality go to a 4 second yellow unprompted? Because it's all about revenue stream, which brings me to my reason for hating cops. The story is all about municipalities in Georgia removing red light cameras due to decreased revenues.
I have no idea how many cops stop crimes that could lead to the loss of life, limb or property on a daily basis, but I've honestly never been in a situation where I've said "thank God the cops are here." I take that back, one time my house was broken into and I waited 4 and a half hours for a cop to show up to take my report, so I did thank my deity that a cop had indeed shown up.
I can tell you that the number of cops I have seen looking for speeders is great, and going up every day. What is interesting is that most times I see them looking for speeders in areas where people aren't, so there is less chance of anyone being hurt by an errant 10 miles over.
A hint for anyone driving into Louisiana: WATCH THE SPEED LIMIT! Bobby Jindal runs a police state with shitty roads.
That's what makes me rage.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Rage Can Keep You Up At Night
Anyone who has spent an extended period of time around me will know that I run on a fuel known as "rage-ahol" and it keeps me functioning well.
Most times I see something that incites me into a fit of rage, and that keeps me going throughout the day. Eventually my rage high wears off and I fall into a heap on the ground where I am covered up until a dream incites rage enough to wake me. Well, I made the mistake of watching the news and then actually looking up raw video before going to bed the other night. I couldn't go to sleep after I saw this:
What is going on is the Wisconsin State Senate broke up the previous budget bill that called for an end of the ability for most public unions to negotiate for anything other than wages, and the Republicans are voting it through committee over a point of order objection of one of it's members. To be fair, the member never says "point of order" but he is clearly having a point of order discussion with the chair. Nothing can be more antithetical to the messages that Republicans have put out over the last two years.
"Well Ragin' Man, that is only in Wisconsin!" you say. Well random guy who talks to my brain, I say check out the first two or twenty minutes of this video:
What you're seeing is Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) making a point of order objection to a bill being entered into committee because it clearly fails to meet the standards of the legislative body it seeks to gain passage in.
This is where Republicans have lost me. I get their adherence to the Constitution kick, and I'll be honest, I find it a little too slogan-y for my taste, but there's nothing wrong with getting back to basics. If you want to make a superfluous rule, go ahead and make it. I don't have to follow it, so I'm not too worried about it. The problem I have is that while passing the healthcare bill in 2010 Republican spokespeople like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh never failed to mention what dastardly tricks that are within the rules the Democrats were willing to use to pass the bill. If we turned back to Republicans, who became fiscal hawks overnight in November, we would have a stricter adherence to Glenn Beck's understanding of what the Founders intended.
These rules were made to ensure that the healthcare debacle never happened again. I guess the rules could do that, but apparently they can be selectively followed.
The best case of this hypocrisy is in the person of Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) who has often misquoted then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's famous "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." On March 6th's Meet the Press she again misquoted to "famously" say "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it."
What is most egregious about this misquote is that Rep. Bachmann is making it sound as if then-Speaker Pelosi has no idea what is in the bill, and was not speaking about the public not knowing what was in the bill. I'm not going to get into my personal feelings about the quote by then-Speaker Pelosi, because it is a whole other issue. The real issue at hand is that the Republicans in Wisconsin in the first video I posted essentially told the one Democrat in the room that he could find out what was in the bill after they passed it. Will Rep. Bachmann lend her voice to the growing chorus of those enraged by this breaking of the rules? Not that I have seen, but she had previously been very active in speaking out about her support of Gov. Walker, so it stands to reason she should speak out about a completely wrong and illegal practice used to get the bill out of committee.
I don't care what you think of the bill, but if you had a problem with how the healthcare bill was passed a few years ago, then you should be marching in the streets of Wisconsin. Republicans refer to the states as "laboratories of democracy", and if you're not outspoken you could be the next victim of this latest experiment in a Republic based on the end, and not a republic based on laws.
Most times I see something that incites me into a fit of rage, and that keeps me going throughout the day. Eventually my rage high wears off and I fall into a heap on the ground where I am covered up until a dream incites rage enough to wake me. Well, I made the mistake of watching the news and then actually looking up raw video before going to bed the other night. I couldn't go to sleep after I saw this:
What is going on is the Wisconsin State Senate broke up the previous budget bill that called for an end of the ability for most public unions to negotiate for anything other than wages, and the Republicans are voting it through committee over a point of order objection of one of it's members. To be fair, the member never says "point of order" but he is clearly having a point of order discussion with the chair. Nothing can be more antithetical to the messages that Republicans have put out over the last two years.
"Well Ragin' Man, that is only in Wisconsin!" you say. Well random guy who talks to my brain, I say check out the first two or twenty minutes of this video:
What you're seeing is Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) making a point of order objection to a bill being entered into committee because it clearly fails to meet the standards of the legislative body it seeks to gain passage in.
This is where Republicans have lost me. I get their adherence to the Constitution kick, and I'll be honest, I find it a little too slogan-y for my taste, but there's nothing wrong with getting back to basics. If you want to make a superfluous rule, go ahead and make it. I don't have to follow it, so I'm not too worried about it. The problem I have is that while passing the healthcare bill in 2010 Republican spokespeople like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh never failed to mention what dastardly tricks that are within the rules the Democrats were willing to use to pass the bill. If we turned back to Republicans, who became fiscal hawks overnight in November, we would have a stricter adherence to Glenn Beck's understanding of what the Founders intended.
These rules were made to ensure that the healthcare debacle never happened again. I guess the rules could do that, but apparently they can be selectively followed.
The best case of this hypocrisy is in the person of Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) who has often misquoted then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's famous "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." On March 6th's Meet the Press she again misquoted to "famously" say "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it."
What is most egregious about this misquote is that Rep. Bachmann is making it sound as if then-Speaker Pelosi has no idea what is in the bill, and was not speaking about the public not knowing what was in the bill. I'm not going to get into my personal feelings about the quote by then-Speaker Pelosi, because it is a whole other issue. The real issue at hand is that the Republicans in Wisconsin in the first video I posted essentially told the one Democrat in the room that he could find out what was in the bill after they passed it. Will Rep. Bachmann lend her voice to the growing chorus of those enraged by this breaking of the rules? Not that I have seen, but she had previously been very active in speaking out about her support of Gov. Walker, so it stands to reason she should speak out about a completely wrong and illegal practice used to get the bill out of committee.
I don't care what you think of the bill, but if you had a problem with how the healthcare bill was passed a few years ago, then you should be marching in the streets of Wisconsin. Republicans refer to the states as "laboratories of democracy", and if you're not outspoken you could be the next victim of this latest experiment in a Republic based on the end, and not a republic based on laws.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Hypocrisy
Want to piss off a ragin' man fast? Be a hypocrite.
Any number of pro-Republican and anti-union blogs have referred to the protesters in Wisconsin as some sort of paid conspirators. Often these bloggers seek refuge in the few radio hosts that link them all together for moral support and essentially marching orders for the next subject of their next blog or exposé.
Well it turns out that the callers bringing up the points that lead into the hosts next rant might not be actual enraged people either. If paid rage is wrong on one side, it should be wrong on both.
Where do they get the money to pay for these callers? Well Sean Hannity probably uses all the money that you donated to his veteran's charities!
Any number of pro-Republican and anti-union blogs have referred to the protesters in Wisconsin as some sort of paid conspirators. Often these bloggers seek refuge in the few radio hosts that link them all together for moral support and essentially marching orders for the next subject of their next blog or exposé.
Well it turns out that the callers bringing up the points that lead into the hosts next rant might not be actual enraged people either. If paid rage is wrong on one side, it should be wrong on both.
Where do they get the money to pay for these callers? Well Sean Hannity probably uses all the money that you donated to his veteran's charities!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)