My colleague, Mark Chao, recently blogged on the new open-carry legislation currently under review. I agree with his argument and would support it any day, but I could perhaps enhance argument by bringing to light the entire reason for having a gun in the first place.
The second amendment exists so that the people can form a militia, if the government ever becomes tyrannical and turns into a dictatorship overnight, in which case the people can "rise up" and take back the land their ancestors fought for. This argument does not stand any longer, as a common militia would not be very effective against the most expensive military in the world. Furthermore, that argument barely even makes sense considering the soldiers of this military are husbands and wives of the citizens they will hypothetically be suppressing. With that said, it is true, however, that one may want to own a gun to keep their family safe. But to carry it in public for all eyes to see? Like Chao said, the most powerful element of a handgun is its stealth - the hidden weapon.
I noticed that Chao expressed a quote: "There's nothing to fear from honest people carrying their legal weapons openly and peacefully." (Kathie Glass). Surely, there's nothing to fear from honest people, like there's nothing to fear from a dictatorship. Look at Communism. The theory is great, the reality is not. Such as in real life, people are not always honest, especially those with weapons. Wearing a weapon requires a certain authoritative personality. And people "carrying their weapons openly and peacefully"? Isn't a weapon a symbol of everything that is not peaceful?
Furthermore, I agree with Chao's argument about how people might respond. That is, a potential criminal will target the person with the weapon first. There's a reason the bank security guard either dies first or gets cuffed first. You just don't know how people will respond in that situation, so it is better to conceal the weapon. Despite this post, I'm not completely against owning weapons. I think owning a handgun at home is okay, but not something like an assault rifle or shotgun. At least, people shouldn't buy a rifle to protect their family - buy a handgun. Buy a rifle to shoot deer. Buy a shotgun to shoot deer. Don't ever buy an assault rifle because that weapon was created entirely for the purpose of killing others as effectively as possible, hence the lightweight, easy-to-use, easy-loading, and fast-shooting qualities of such a gun. Like Chao said, the only people that would open-carry handguns are "boastful" and "overbearing"; the kind of people just looking for others to say, "Look at the gun I have! I have it! It's mine! I have a gun and I can shoot it! Look!" Catch your breath, open-carry advocates. Protecting a bunch of strangers should not be your prerogative.
Link
Friday, December 13, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Local Health Care Helpers
Karina Kling, an author for News 8 Austin, wrote an article about Insure Central Texas and the volunteers that work there. Apparently, this place is a volunteer facility where people can go to get help in signing up for Healthcare.gov as well as help with choosing a plan that's right for them. Lately, there haven't been that many people that have applied, or used this facility for that purpose. Kling states that the group says that about 2000 people have come through the doors of the facility but they could only register about 10 people on the first month, and only a few more the next - a mere trickle of what is required. They remain hopeful, however, that in the month of December, things will pick up, as the website becomes less trafficked. With three weeks to go, it is necessary that people get registered for this health care, and groups like Enroll America will help in this effort.
In my opinion, Rick Perry has curbed the health care exchange effort. Texas turned down the money to set up the Healthcare exchanges so it made it more difficult for people to do. Most of the Republican states did. They didn't have to accept the money, so they didn't accept the money. It could have been billions of dollars from federal funding in Medicaid. If they don't take the money, then the Health care Exchange will have a hard time and then the Republicans go and blame the exchange's faults on Obamacare, rather than the fact that they broke the system. So, no one will be able to join this exchange and we'll need these volunteer associations to help us figure it out. And even when we do, people won't be able to get onto the system since there isn't the funding for the system to work.
Source
In my opinion, Rick Perry has curbed the health care exchange effort. Texas turned down the money to set up the Healthcare exchanges so it made it more difficult for people to do. Most of the Republican states did. They didn't have to accept the money, so they didn't accept the money. It could have been billions of dollars from federal funding in Medicaid. If they don't take the money, then the Health care Exchange will have a hard time and then the Republicans go and blame the exchange's faults on Obamacare, rather than the fact that they broke the system. So, no one will be able to join this exchange and we'll need these volunteer associations to help us figure it out. And even when we do, people won't be able to get onto the system since there isn't the funding for the system to work.
Source
Monday, November 18, 2013
Comment on Abortion
Ms. Tran wrote an article about House Bill 2, which was a bill intended to cut back on the amount of abortion clinics and increase the quality for the ones that are left. I agree with Ms. Tran's comment on this bill that it should pass. I believe abortion should be an option for women however it shouldn't be the first option, or the option should only be addressed with the consent of the father. Abortion should always been done in the safest way possible, and if limiting clinics to do that is the way, then by all means, this should be done.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Rainy Day Slap
They've done it again. They're bringing out the big amendments, because, who needs to make a new law when you can just override previous legislation? This is an especially useful tactic when nobody cares about how the Texas Constitution looks. Moving on...
The nine amendments proposed seem to be pretty random:
1. Gives tax break to spouses of veterans killed in action
2. Eliminates a requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Education Fund
3. Gives tax break to aircraft manufacturers for storage time
4. Gives the Legislature the power to give partial property tax exemption to charity-donated residences to disabled veterans or their surviving spouses
5. Allows homeowners 62 years or older to use reverse mortgages to purchase houses
6. Rainy Day fund use
7. Allows home-rule municipalities to fill vacant city council seats using a special session
8. Repeals the creation of a hospital in Hidalgo County
9. Allows the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to use additional disciplinary actions for misbehaving judges
In honesty, I'm not very interested in any of these amendments except for one: The Rainy Day Fund. I believe it will be useful against the drought. But, in truth, what Texas needs is real punishment. The warning about water being gone sticks in the back of our minds forever, and there is always water. "The lakes are down to 20%!" and we still have 100% shower water, hot water, and sink water. No one will understand the consequence of a serious drought until it becomes a reality and sometimes you just must slap the hands of the child. Telling Texas the "end is nigh" only goes so far, where the perception is a hollow warning. "We will never run out of water," people will say. Until we do.
The point I'm trying to convey here is that we should disallow the passage of the Rainy Day Fund in order for people to realize how important water conservation is. The frog boils slowly, Texas. Only if we turn up the heat quickly will people respond quickly. That is, let Texas fall into water starvation.
Source
The nine amendments proposed seem to be pretty random:
1. Gives tax break to spouses of veterans killed in action
2. Eliminates a requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Education Fund
3. Gives tax break to aircraft manufacturers for storage time
4. Gives the Legislature the power to give partial property tax exemption to charity-donated residences to disabled veterans or their surviving spouses
5. Allows homeowners 62 years or older to use reverse mortgages to purchase houses
6. Rainy Day fund use
7. Allows home-rule municipalities to fill vacant city council seats using a special session
8. Repeals the creation of a hospital in Hidalgo County
9. Allows the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to use additional disciplinary actions for misbehaving judges
In honesty, I'm not very interested in any of these amendments except for one: The Rainy Day Fund. I believe it will be useful against the drought. But, in truth, what Texas needs is real punishment. The warning about water being gone sticks in the back of our minds forever, and there is always water. "The lakes are down to 20%!" and we still have 100% shower water, hot water, and sink water. No one will understand the consequence of a serious drought until it becomes a reality and sometimes you just must slap the hands of the child. Telling Texas the "end is nigh" only goes so far, where the perception is a hollow warning. "We will never run out of water," people will say. Until we do.
The point I'm trying to convey here is that we should disallow the passage of the Rainy Day Fund in order for people to realize how important water conservation is. The frog boils slowly, Texas. Only if we turn up the heat quickly will people respond quickly. That is, let Texas fall into water starvation.
Source
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Guns in San Antonio
Paul Burka, the senior executive editor for the Texas Monthly, wrote a piece on the Burka Blog about the impending Gun Rights demonstration in San Antonio. His commentary on the paranoid gun rights individuals was pretty good, considering he did not once refer to them as inferior to liberals or democrats. That is, he did not use many logical fallacies in his explanation about these gun-toting affairs.
His argument is apparently pointed at politicians using fear as a tool to manipulate conservatives, and that Jerry Patterson, a person that is currently running for Lieutenant Governor, is using that to his advantage. He cites that "[paranoid gun owners] are absolutely sure that a government agent will knock on their door at any moment..." to exemplify his stand that conservative politicians will use whatever they can to get an edge. As he writes, these gun advocates' wish is to "remind ordinary citizens ... that they are allowed in Texas to legally and openly carry what are known as 'long guns'." This is fine, but Burka goes on to a sort of slippery slope argument thereafter, claiming that he "suspects" that gun owners really want to support unconcealed-gun legislation. This speculation may or may not be true. What is true is that conservative politicians will use guns as a selling point because they have to. It's economics in politics - the firm that does not maximize profits does not succeed in the business, where the market and the government collide like physics and chemistry on the atomic scale. What Burka is really saying is that as long as the fear of losing one's weapon exists, politicians will use that against the people.
The gun culture and the drug culture have so much in common. People that depend on weapons for their hobbies will never vote for gun laws because people having weapons is the most important issue at this moment. Not whether the government just shut down and spent billions of dollars to b*tch about legislation that's already been ratified, or the fact that some people are not treated equally due to their preference of sexual activity. The truth is, people care about themselves and their immediate family - the ones they give a name to, who cook for them, clean for them, and love for them. And the hard cold truth of it all is that we have the Second Amendment so that ordinary citizens can create a militia - Against what? Against the biggest, most expensive, first-rate, and unrelenting force on the entire planet? Yeah, we call that the U.S. Military. I don't wish to admire our military, but rather bluntly explain that assault rifles don't win revolutions, especially hypothetical ones. My rant is over.
His argument is apparently pointed at politicians using fear as a tool to manipulate conservatives, and that Jerry Patterson, a person that is currently running for Lieutenant Governor, is using that to his advantage. He cites that "[paranoid gun owners] are absolutely sure that a government agent will knock on their door at any moment..." to exemplify his stand that conservative politicians will use whatever they can to get an edge. As he writes, these gun advocates' wish is to "remind ordinary citizens ... that they are allowed in Texas to legally and openly carry what are known as 'long guns'." This is fine, but Burka goes on to a sort of slippery slope argument thereafter, claiming that he "suspects" that gun owners really want to support unconcealed-gun legislation. This speculation may or may not be true. What is true is that conservative politicians will use guns as a selling point because they have to. It's economics in politics - the firm that does not maximize profits does not succeed in the business, where the market and the government collide like physics and chemistry on the atomic scale. What Burka is really saying is that as long as the fear of losing one's weapon exists, politicians will use that against the people.
The gun culture and the drug culture have so much in common. People that depend on weapons for their hobbies will never vote for gun laws because people having weapons is the most important issue at this moment. Not whether the government just shut down and spent billions of dollars to b*tch about legislation that's already been ratified, or the fact that some people are not treated equally due to their preference of sexual activity. The truth is, people care about themselves and their immediate family - the ones they give a name to, who cook for them, clean for them, and love for them. And the hard cold truth of it all is that we have the Second Amendment so that ordinary citizens can create a militia - Against what? Against the biggest, most expensive, first-rate, and unrelenting force on the entire planet? Yeah, we call that the U.S. Military. I don't wish to admire our military, but rather bluntly explain that assault rifles don't win revolutions, especially hypothetical ones. My rant is over.
Monday, October 7, 2013
An Editor's Rhetoric
In the Austin Chronicle, I found an article under the Point Austin section about Obamacare. The arguments the author made were directed against the Republican party of Texas. Specifically, they were against the Texas governor Rick Perry, senator Ted Cruz (that senator who's apparently leading the whole government shutdown business), and the attorney general, Greg Abbot. It is true, this article was about an issue presiding in the United States legislature. But the focus was on the state level, where the governor and attorney general made their desires clear: that Obamacare would never be implemented in Texas.
The author, Michael King, is a writer and editor for the Austin Chronicle. The author does a fine job of appealing to a democratic ideals. The entire article is about how the governor and company would like nothing more than for Obamacare to burn. This is not to say the author has argued fairly - only that the author has argued with bias. Every word in the article was used against the Republicans in some way. For example, the Republicans were said to "leave many thousands of women and their families without access to basic health care services." One might say that's the reverse of sentimental appeals. It puts the Republicans in the bad guy's shoes, where we see them as leaving helpless women and children to fend for themselves. Could the author have not said, "leav[ing] many thousands of people without access to basic health care services"? The preceding text did mention Women's Health Care, but why bring this up? The author was explaining how Republicans aren't "actually improving or expanding health care for the more than six million Texans." Are men not included in these six million? When the author can just talk about the suffering, innocent, poor women, and how it's apparently the Republican's fault, then there's some logical fallacies.
Fortunately, the author does bring up a counter-argument of sorts. It's not so much that the author goes for the Republicans, but instead acknowledges that Obamacare may not be the best that in can be, and that a cooperation of both sides might be able to improve it. But he continues his intense bias with the last paragraph. He declares that once, opposing parties could come to agreements. But due to the Republicans, we can't. Therefore, Republicans are bad, or so one might be led to believe. The author even tosses in a number: 48 million Americans "without health insurance." Americans? Not just "individuals" or "people"? "By, God, these are our neighbors!" one might exclaim. And the sentence finally ends with the author saying that Republicans "offer only one, irresponsible answer: No." Surely, Republicans have some argument that consists of more than one syllable, so I would say a generalization is happening here.
The author, Michael King, is a writer and editor for the Austin Chronicle. The author does a fine job of appealing to a democratic ideals. The entire article is about how the governor and company would like nothing more than for Obamacare to burn. This is not to say the author has argued fairly - only that the author has argued with bias. Every word in the article was used against the Republicans in some way. For example, the Republicans were said to "leave many thousands of women and their families without access to basic health care services." One might say that's the reverse of sentimental appeals. It puts the Republicans in the bad guy's shoes, where we see them as leaving helpless women and children to fend for themselves. Could the author have not said, "leav[ing] many thousands of people without access to basic health care services"? The preceding text did mention Women's Health Care, but why bring this up? The author was explaining how Republicans aren't "actually improving or expanding health care for the more than six million Texans." Are men not included in these six million? When the author can just talk about the suffering, innocent, poor women, and how it's apparently the Republican's fault, then there's some logical fallacies.
Fortunately, the author does bring up a counter-argument of sorts. It's not so much that the author goes for the Republicans, but instead acknowledges that Obamacare may not be the best that in can be, and that a cooperation of both sides might be able to improve it. But he continues his intense bias with the last paragraph. He declares that once, opposing parties could come to agreements. But due to the Republicans, we can't. Therefore, Republicans are bad, or so one might be led to believe. The author even tosses in a number: 48 million Americans "without health insurance." Americans? Not just "individuals" or "people"? "By, God, these are our neighbors!" one might exclaim. And the sentence finally ends with the author saying that Republicans "offer only one, irresponsible answer: No." Surely, Republicans have some argument that consists of more than one syllable, so I would say a generalization is happening here.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Signs for Tailgaiting
The Texas Facilities Commission, as KVUE reports, has successfully installed signs that no one will pay attention to. I'm betting it cost thousands of dollars to do that - just to dig a hole, put up a pole, and attach a sign to it. The purpose of this sign was to stop littering, urination, and to stop people from leaving grills unattended at tailgaiting parties. Normally, no one would do these things anyway. The only reason they do is because they're drunk. Strangely enough, when individuals are drunk, they tend to not obey laws or signs. I think the following image portrays what these people will see:
Not that it will say "Keep Out." Seriously, though, if we consider that some politician somewhere had to come up with this sign idea, we can also say that they care about the surrounding businesses who complained, right? Wrong. It turns out that D.P.S. patrols were not increased in these areas. One of those fundamental rules about the Constitution is the authority to back it up. Without the authority, these signs are just expensive pieces of metal. Whatever the case, it might be worth the read (considering it is short), if you wish to find any more ridiculous details about this useless endeavor. (link to site)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)