3 Boxes of BS

That’s right boys and girls, it’s no longer your property that you have a right to do as you want with, it is now a potential revenue stream for the city of Dallas.

City managers have floated the idea of charging $5, as a way to help balance next year’s tough budget…

Jasso and Caraway estimate the fee could bring in $500,000 next year, and they recommend the money go toward senior dental services, cultural affairs programs, graffiti removal and animal services.

Think about that for a minute.

You would  no longer be allowed to sell your stuff, on your property, when you want to without giving a cut of your money to the city.

Oh, and they get their cut before you sell a single item. Heck at least the mob waits until you’ve sold things.

Please join the discussion.

I can not wrap my mind around the way some people think. I try. I really do.

Seek First to Understand, then Be Understood.

For a very long time, I’ve used this as a guiding principle and I usually have success. Even if it takes a while.

But I’m failing miserably with the mentality displayed by so many Far Left Nanny Staters.

For example, (emphasis mine below)

3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents.

While an array of legal and logistical obstacles present themselves, the math is staggering. It’s time to sort out the regulations and rates that would facilitate the solution: turning empty houses into homes for those in need…..

I’m not advocating giving houses away — such a move would create a host of political and fiscal problems — but government should be working toward a solution to match up the empty homes with those who need a roof to live under.

A homeless population equivalent to the size of Los Angeles is unacceptable, and with over five times as many empty houses, we have not only a moral obligation but also an economic imperative to come up with a creative way to fix this travesty.

I have some questions that might just illuminate how bad of an idea this is.

1. Ever hear of the concept of private property Bub?

It’s not about taking a residence from someone who can’t pay his or her bills and giving it to another person who can’t make payments either, it’s about using resources we have in excess.

The problem with your idea Bub, is “we” don’t have the resources in excess. Someone actually owns that property, someone has their money tied up in it. Just because it isn’t being used at this moment does not mean you or anyone but the owner can arbitrarily decide how it gets used.

2. Ever hear of the Constitution Bub?

It limits just exactly what the government can do and I’ve read that document — no where is there power to allowed to do what you want.

3. Ever think about the cycle you mentioned Bub?

the market will follow the same cycle: demand, saturation and then glut.

Taking houses out of that cycle will keep prices artificially high — meaning fewer people will be able to afford housing. Isn’t that a little self defeating?

4. Ever hear of Reality Bub?

Without someone to take care of it, a property will decline steeply. But with someone living in the house…actually taking care of them…well, that’s a far better situation.

Most people (again the caveat is most people, there are a few this doesn’t apply to) aren’t homeless because of one bad decision, one careless mistake.

Most people are homeless because they continue(d) to make bad decisions over and over again.

Giving a house to someone /unable/unwilling to make good decisions doesn’t guarantee they will ‘take care’ of the house. Far from it.

Look around that the public housing that is currently available, look around at the shelters, look around where the homeless people stay.

Do you see those areas getting better or worse?

5. Ever think that most “homeless people don’t need or can’t afford a home to take care of, Bub?

One researcher who examined a sample of homeless persons over a 2-year period found:

• Most, or about 80 percent, exit from homelessness within 2 or 3 weeks. They often have more personal, social, and economic resources to draw from than people who are homeless for longer periods of time.
• About 10 percent are homeless for up to 2 months, with housing availability and affordability adding to the time they are homeless.
• Another 10 percent are homeless on a chronic, protracted basis, for as long as 7 or 8 months in a 2-year period. Disabilities associated with mental illnesses and substance use are common. On any given night, this group of homeless persons can account for up to 50 percent of those seeking emergency shelter.

90% of homelessness resolved within 2 months.

How is ‘giving them’  a house going to help?

Never mind the fact that, out of the long term homeless, many have mental illness or substance abuse issues that make them ‘less the ideal home owner candidates’ shall we say?

6. Ever stop and think there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this right now Bub?

Not a single solitary thing but your desire to spend other people’s money on your ideas .

Honestly, I think I’m going to start calling the Far Left the “Other People’s Money Party”.

Let’s examine the concept here in a different light — Skippy gets together with some of his like minded friends and pools their money. Skippy and friends goes to the people who own the vacant houses and offers them a good price. Skippy and friends invite homeless people to live in those houses.

Homeless situation resolved without the government getting involved, without property being seized, without the laws and Constitution being violated.

But that isn’t what Skippy wants now is it?

From Richard Warnick at One Utah

Yes, like everyone in the middle class I have more than I need. Also, like everyone in the middle class under 65 I’m working without a net– I could lose those surplus assets almost overnight. For example, when Bush crashed the economy the assessed valuation of “my” house (that the bank owns) went down 40 percent!…

I pay Comcast about $100 a month for cable TV and Internet (which is outrageous).

To Sobeale discussing the flooding in Pakistan

I’m a little shocked and surprised that despite the growing humanitarian crisis in Pakistan, the disaster there hasn’t dominated our news cycle in the same way crises in other nations have. Where are the telethons and Twibbons and nightly stories of daring rescues and calls for massive aid to the flood-ravaged country. (emphasis mine – Bob)

Who responded to my comment with this:

Pretty weak, Bob S. Hypocrisy? Don’t think so. I’m a blogger writing about how it’s interesting that no one seems to give a damn about Pakistan and you call me a hypocrite for not organizing a telethon?

Right-o

Yes, I do Sobeale, I really do think it is hypocritical of you to complain about there not being enough in the news when you aren’t doing things to put the crisis in the news.

Yes, I think it is hypocritical of Richard to want to tax the ‘rich’ to provide a safety net he is unwilling to sacrifice a little to provide for himself.

Yes, I think it is hypocritical of Skippy to want to take other people’s money or property when he’s doesn’t seem to be willing to spend his own money.

So, if you think there is a problem; do you have a responsibility to act on it before you recommend spending other people’s money without their consent?

Please join the discussion.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It isn’t just when it is convenient for the government to get a warrant, it’s all the time.

AS&E’s Reiss counters privacy critics by pointing out that the ZBV scans don’t capture nearly as much detail of human bodies as their airport counterparts. The company’s marketing materials say that its “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.”

And the Airport Scanners weren’t supposed to be able to get that much detail or store images either — why don’t you try pulling the other leg!

“From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.

How about until there is sufficient enough evidence that I’ve committed a crime what is in my car, my house or on my person is none of your frakkin business Bub???

Technology will always advance but the principles of privacy and limited government reach will always remain the same.

That is why the fight for our rights has to be fought now and every day.

Please join the discussion.

R. Stanton Scott — Thank you.

If you hadn’t  tried to convince me the Heller decision didn’t look at the Founding Father’s intentions:

He apparently believes that the majority opinion in the Heller decision as a whole and see which side actually relied on evidence of the Founders’ intent. case, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, depends on the intent of the “writers of the Constitution” for its analysis and legitimacy.  But the sources cited in Scalia’s opinion show no such thing.  Instead, they depend on interpretations of contemporary dictionaries, State Constitutions, and later interpretations of these documents, along with Scalia’s interpretation of the interpretations.

I would have never found The Constitutional Sources Project (aka Consource) — (emphasis mine) from their press page.

Founded in May 2005 and launched on the Constitution’s 220th birthday, ConSource, also known as the Constitutional Sources Project, is a non-profit, public organization aimed at creating the first, free, comprehensive, online library of Constitution-related source materials including authoritative transcripts and high quality images of the original documents.

ConSource can be used by anyone. Users include the sixth grader to the Supreme Court justice. ConSource contains a fully searchable database of source materials for the United States Constitution. This free online repository allows users to access all of these founding documents in the same place and in a short period of time. In addition to being able to search the documents, they are available via collections or via links as they relate to the Constitution.

Current collections include James Madison’s handwritten notes of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Anti and Pro-Federalist Papers, state ratification debates for nine states, the Bill of Rights’ legislative history, the papers of George Washington and George Mason, pre-1787 state constitutions, charters, and bills of rights, constitutional precedents. ConSource will eventually contain texts and images for all constitutional sources from Antiquity to 1992 when the 27th Amendment was passed.

This site is going on my favorites, my blog roll and every other place I can keep it.

Feel like I’m in pretty elite company using this site

U.S. Supreme Court justices on both sides in the landmark D.C. v. Heller gun rights case resorted to original documents in making their case about the meaning of the Second Amendment. But they used a little-known digital resource to get there, a project whose mission is to digitize thousands of Founding-era documents that shed light on the original meaning of the Constitution…
The Court’s opinions don’t actually cite the project’s Web site as the source, but Updike has a pretty good idea that it’s where at least some of the documents were found by the justices and their clerks. She actually “trained” Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr. on navigating the site, which enables them to click on different clauses of the Constitution and find relevant documents.

Looking around I found several early versions of the 2nd Amendment such as this one

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

Notice in this one (and many others) the Right of the People comes first, then the militia as a reason.

Or how about this one

Yet Mr Madison has inserted, in his amendments, the increase of representatives, each State having two at least. The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.

Please join the discussion — after you take a look at Consource, of course

Oh, and if you don’t hear from me today — it’s because I’m serving on jury duty.

For all the anti right advocates out there who say “We license drivers” or “We register cars”…..

Why don’t we see “May Issue” schemes for driver’s licenses or car registrations?

Would you be okay with having to show “good cause” or “need” to obtain either?

I didn’t think so.

Found this video through another blogger showing another one of Professor Zimbardo’s videos. (believe it was Weer’d and the RSA Animate video on Empathetic Civilisation – correct me if I’m wrong or provide a link – great video also)

About 10 minutes long but worth wading through.

Watching this, I wondered if the different time perspectives could explain anti-rights advocates, especially those set on banning firearms.

Here is an example of what I’m talking about.

wadaduga

Bob, look, cars and knives are useful tools in our society, created for a specific purpose other than killing. Handguns, on the other hand, are weapons. Private citizens do not need handguns.

Have you scrolled through all the innocent deaths listed on this blog? Have you seen how many husbands shoot their wives and children? Some of those children are 2, 4, 7, 11 years old! Did you see the 80-year-old woman shot dead while leaving church service? Or how about the man shot dead at his wife’s birthday party? Did you see the 14-year-old who shot a 9-year-old in the head? Did you see the mother of four shot to death in her car with her three kids sitting in the car with her? How many police officers do I list? The pastor’s wife shot dead in her own driveway?

Scroll through this blog and remember: I only catch a small fraction of all this carnage. What kind of country are we settling for?

Notice how he only focuses on the negative, only focuses on the criminal past.

Professor Zimbardo stated there are people who primarily focus on the past in a negative manner; is that what we are seeing with the antis?

They don’t see the positives in the past, they don’t see the benefit in the future. Only the past negative.

From the great but new to me blog (now on the blogroll) Curses! Foiled Again; Wadaduga makes the following statement

I don’t blame guns for the tens of thousands of gun deaths in the United States any more than I blame drugs for illicit drug use. We humans are just not very good at controlling ourselves with certain things, that’s why we have laws. We clearly don’t do a very good job of controlling ourselves with guns.

See, that completely ignores the fact that for the vast overwhelming majority of people are very good about controlling themselves. Past negative focus– notice how he says he doesn’t blame the firearms but still wants to ban handguns.

Even if we grant a very low number of gun owners; let’s say 50 million (owning 280 million or more firearms); there are less then 400,000 firearm related crimes a year! How is that not a ‘very good job of controlling ourselves with guns‘?

Do the math people ! Even if we stipulate each crime was committed by a different person – unlikely- that is still around 0.6% of the minimum gun owner population. (303,880 firearm related offenses divided by 50 million times 100 for percentage).

Explanation, not an excuse

This might partially explain the antis but I’m by no means excusing them. They are — or should be– adults capable of rational thought.

It absolutely amazes me that the antis– this people who focus on the past negative — are so selective in their focus.

They ignore the millions of people disarmed then killed by Stalin.
They ignore the millions of people disarmed then killed by Chairman Mao.
They ignore Hitler, they ignore Pol Pot, they ignore so many cases where the people were denied the right to keep and bear arms and died because they couldn’t defend themselves.

They ignore the cities and states where gun control laws are strict yet the crime rates are high (Washington D.C., Philly, Chicago).

They ignore countries where gun control has been in place for decades and yet the crime rate is spiraling upwards such as the United Kingdom.

Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal.

One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals’ williness to use them rises.

The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour.

They ignore the fact that violent crime has increased in places where firearms are strictly controlled and is worse then places where firearms aren’t as strictly controlled.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

They ignore the fact that despite increasing firearm ownership, increasing number of people carrying firearms as part of their daily life that violent crime is actually decreasing in most of America.

Now there are some people who may be sincere in their efforts to improve the world -I think there are more just out to control others — so understanding how they see the world might help.

I’m not sure how this helps in debating the antis – yet but wanted to put it out there.

What do you think?

Please join the discussion.

This article is a couple of days old by the time you are reading this, hope you don’t mind but I set up a post for today.

I’ll be at the hospital today for my wife’s surgery so I don’t know if I’ll have access to the web or not.

Let’s talk about Voter Identification.

The Dallas Morning News reports on a pet peeve of mine — voters are not required to show identification at the polls.

AUSTIN – Texas Democrats have staked out political ground that trumpets their beliefs and will ignite supporters at the party’s state convention this week – protecting the rights of eligible citizens to vote.

First, voter identification isn’t about denying the rights of eligible voters. That is a misleading statement. It is about confirming the eligibility of voters.

The only problem – especially for a political party that hasn’t won a statewide office in 15 years – is that when it comes to whether voters should have to show a photo ID, 70 percent of Texans disagree with the Democrats.

But Democrats must champion the cause regardless of polls, said Rep. Rafael Anchia of Dallas.

“It’s the right position, and that’s what matters,” said Anchia, who has led Democrats’ efforts on the issue in the Legislature.

So much for the Democrats remembering they are supposed to be the servants, the representatives of the people.

Also, the idea that not requiring people to show photo identification is the “right position” is a highly suspect position.

Most Texans believe that if they need one to rent a video or get on a plane, it makes sense that there should be equal safeguards for the ballot.

Let’s also add in the fact that we must pass an incredibly higher bar to exercise our right to carry a firearm in public.

We have to present:

• Social security number,
• Valid driver license or identification card,
• Current demographic, address, contact, and employment information,
• Residential and employment information for the last five years (new users only),
• Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history

and

• Two recent Photographs — passport size
• 2 sets of fingerprints on provided cards
• proof of completion of 10-12 hour class
• proof of shooting proficiency test

So, please excuse me if I get my nose a little out of joint about the hardship it would create for some people to present photo identification.

more below the fold

Continue Reading