Whats With America and Guns?

"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."

If ever a topic needed logic and reason applied to it. This is really a non-issue for me, I slmost started not to blog about it. I dont even get where the debate is. Guns serve one purpose: to kill. We want less people killing each other. Therefore, guns should be illegal. There... I solved it already. Dont stir that mortar... I dont need any busts made in my image. I do this kinda stuff for free.

Here's the thing, when we did something as a collective in Elementary school, and one or a few people couldn't behave, we all lost that priviledge. Now, unlike the Right wing of America, I'm against guns, and think (actually, I know) they serve NO purpose, but, lets say you're one of those Christian Conservatives who likes to hunt. Well, okay, here's my answer "sorry Bobby... we gave Jimmy a warning... but Jimmy kept killing his playmates... you guys know the rules. If you guys can't handle the freedom, then Im going to take it away."

So, even if I gave some credence to this barbaric, simplistic desire to hunt... WHICH I DONT... I'd still say, too bad... the greater good out weighs your drive to shoot Bambi in the head. Sorry, get a new hobby. Paintball... Laser tag or something. Yeah... laser tag... its been 20 years, bring it back.

And then there's the protection argument, which is a circular argument. You need protection from who... oh, the other guy who has a gun. But, you wouldn't need protection from him if firearms were illegal and he didn't have access to guns either. Not to mention, if just having a firearm were to become illegal... that could open up grounds for easier warrants, fines and arrests helping prosecution of potential criminals.

Do people in France need such protection?

If you look at the murder rate per capita (click here), you will see that the United States is pretty high on the list. With a murder rate triple that of most Western European countries with laws against private ownership of firearms. People want to perpetuate the lie that no guns equals lawlessness "i need to protect myself", but, then... what exactly are the police for? Some, might be silly enough to say, "hey, we're not that high... we're only #24." Well, um... okay, if you want to compare our violence to places like, Columbia, South Africa, Russia, Mexico and Zimbabwe, well, i guess its not that bad. But, I would say... if we'd rather compare the United States violence to a country like Zimbabwe, than to say... Italy, thats not exactly a comforting sign, is it? Population, obviously plays into any list that is NOT per capita, however, we our fourth highest in the world in the number of deaths per year from firearms. (click here) We're third in the world in terms of total population. You may say, well, thats not that bad, 3rd most in people... 4th most in deaths... not bad eh? Well, not exactly. India and China are not leading the Robert Blake race. Interesting since their populations DWARF our own. But, if you look at that second chart, you see this noticeable drop out after #5, and this HUGE drop off after #8.

I wont use this as a time to praise all the hard-core Jesus pastors who vehemently support Republicans (who are the pro gun party) , and sometimes hint that voting for Democrats can be non-Christian. Just another example of Republicans doing God's will. (Divine Population control?)

Meanwhile, in London... they're having a problem of their own...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25543275/

[ Knife crimes rip through city, overtaking terrorism as top priority ]

To anyone living in America, this has got to be a joke... right? Stabbings? Knife crimes? This sounds like traveling 400 years into the past. Jack the Ripper? Oh no... knives... run for your lives. Unless you're Julius Caesar... you're probably not too concerned with knife crimes. When stabbings are your main crime problem, as far as I'm concerned... you dont have a crime problem. The point is: Guns are too easy. Crimes of passion have too much potential. Those with ill intent have the ability to inflict far more violence with a gun, compared to a knife. Im not really worried about Jack the Ripper... but America has had many instances of mass murder committed by citizens who exercized their right to bear arms.

And, let me also, say, the NRA and their powerful lobby (praise, Jesus!) have done everything in their power to make gun ownership as easy as possible. Doesn't Christianity say something about the love of money...? Even the ban on assault rifles has lifted and has not been re-established. C'mon hunters. Unless you're hunting T-Rex... Velociraptors... or... taking on a pride of Lion on your own... what does the average American need with an AK-47? This sense of "freedom"... um... you can be TOO free... one of the fundamental roles of government is to supply security and control. Hard to do when the government is helping to flood the streets chaos creating weapons. Hallelujah!

And last but not least, lets not forget the people who hold to the "its the 2nd amendment!" retort. Um... so, what? Amend it. Amendments have been... AMENDED before. Amendments have either complimented, added to, or outright contradicted something that was previously law of the land. I got my other 2/5's of a person back! So it can be done. Now, I cooooooooould be wrong... however, it stands to reason, certain things that were necessary or believed in 1776, might not be practical as law in 232 years later. Just a thought...

When the amendment was written, we were a fledgling country. Remember, we had no police departments. No real army, just small militias that were dealing with the threat of Imperial Britain. But now... um... we have the Army... the Navy... the Marines... the Airforce... the city Police... the CIA... the FBI... the State Troopers... the county police [Sheriffs]... the National Guard... etc... etc..

I think... even without citizens with guns... we, will be fine. Just a thought.

- Charles Whitman (1966) was the ex-Marine who murdered several people from the UT Tower in Austin, Texas. His suicide note requested an autopsy, which interestingly enough showed a large lump at the base of his brain.

- James Huberty went on a killing spree in a South California McDonald's letting off 300 rounds. He tried to call a mental illness hotline the day before, but didn't recieve a callback because his name was misspelled.

- George Harnard (1991) committed the "Luby's Cafe Massacre" in Killeen, Texas when he backed his truck into a Luby's restaurant and started opening fire a shotgun, killing customers as they hid behind tables. He left 22 dead and killed himself after being shot once by a police officer.
- The "Brown's Chicken Massacre" (1993) left 7 people dead in a Chicago suburb as Juan Luna and Jim Digorski decided to add some excitement to their life by planning to shoot some people.

- Colin Ferguson (1994) was the man behind the "Long Island Railroad Massacre" when he randomly started opening fire on people on a NY train.

- Jennifer San Marco (2006) was a former postal worker who went back to her job and killed 5, including herself.

- Solomon Talevic killed 5 in Salt Lake City in the "Trolley Square Mall Shooting" where he entered the mall and randomly opened fire.

- Charles Roberts (2006), angry at God at the death of his infant daghter, committed the "Amish School Massacre" killing 5 in a Amish school for girls.

- Robert Hawkins (2007), who had a history of mental illness, stole his stepdad's assault rifle and committed the "West Roads Mall Shooting" in Omaha, Nebraska leaving 8 dead.

Columbine... the DC Sniper... and the Virginia Tech massacre dont even need to be mentioned... let alone the violence many people see on their tv sets every evenings.

RIP John Edward's Political Career

Simple minded people need to get a grip! Now, its unfortunate that John Edward's cheated on his wife... and unfortunate (as most in his position do) that he lied about it, and unfortunate that he's probably still lying about the details of what happened. However, what does this have to do with politics? This is absurdity to the fullest.

Now people who have heard me speak about politics PROBABLY know that John Edwards was my guy. I thought that Hillary Clinton did a better job than Barack Obama of "courting" Edwards' supporters, however, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, John Edwards was the only politician from either political party (sorry, Ralph, you dont count) who repeatedly talked about poverty and the (unspoken) social class warfare going on in America. I wont go into the details, but his platform is what being a democrat use to be about. Its the reason that workers unions support Democrats unconditionally... because they believe that Democrats, more than Republicans will look out for them and their members... regular working class Americans. After he dropped out of the race (partly because people are simple and dont listen to the "message" but instead focused on the popularity of Obama and Clinton) that message about growing socio-economic disparities slowly started to die down.

I thought we learned after Bush. Assuming that George Bush is the perfect husband, who really believes he's been a better president than Bill Clinton. The point? What does his personal life matter. This story, which shouldn't even be a major story (by the so-called "liberal" media), has been perused beyond comprehension. Who cares? Actually... I can answer that... His wife should care. His children should care. His minister should care. His in-laws should care. We should NOT. This wouldn't even be a story in Europe. What does his personal life have to do with how he works?!!!

Gaaaaaaaawd... are you serious? The leap in logic that "good husband equals good president"... as ludicrous as that would be, even in a vacuum... should be even more so after this last guy came in promising to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Every country that Bush visits, there are 1000's of their citizens protesting. Good job with the restoration of honor and integrity, you functioning retard. "You're doing a heck of a job, Bushie." Let me tell you something... if every man who cheated on his wife lost his job... there would be a lot of unemployed Joe's walking the streets of America.

Now, as a BIG John Edwards guy, I was shocked to hear about the affair. But, from our perspective, its just an affair. Thats a home issue. I could see if he were illegally spying on Americans, rolling back US civil liberties, setting up secret prisons and ignoring the Geneva convention. Now, that I care about.. now THAT'S an American public issue. Oh, but thats boring... that isn't "news." Simple-minded people need to get a grip...

Did You Know There Were ELECTRIC Cars?

Did you know there were electric cars? Not hybrids, but purely electric cars. I'm pretty sure I was aware of the theory, but did you know that there were electric cars on the streets of America? Now, I do say "were" because, unfortunately, such is no longer the case. There are a few individuals and small companies who have created their own, however, in terms of major automakers: they no longer exist.

More than a hundred years ago, electric outnumbered the gas cars on the streets. As the 1900's rolled in, automatic starters and cheaper gas prices gave a strong advantage to gasoline-fueled automobiles. But the gas car has come at a price. We now are keenly aware of its negative impacts... that is to say... the pollution of our breathable air quality, and its affect on global warming through the emissions of CO2. Starting perhaps in the 1970's, a few "alternative" energy ideas were kicked around but nothing took hold.

In 1987, GM partook in a contest known as the World Solar Challenge in Australia. They built a car with solar panels on it (similar to the picture below) that ran on an electric battery.

After the success of winning first place, GM inquired of that same engineering team to create another electric car... a practical automobile for Americans. Alan Cocconi, a GM engineer, built the advanced electric engine (100K Watts) in his garage. Its his prototye that was used for GM's electric vehicles.

Helped by news of GM's research and development (R & D) of the electric automobile, California passed the 1990 "Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate." It forced car companies to dedicate a small amount of their production line to electric vehicles that required no gasoline. The plan was, it would increase every several years. So, perhaps 2% in 1994... 5% of production in 1999, 10% in 2003, so on and so forth.

General Motors named their electric vehicle... seen above... the EV-1. (electric vehicle - the first?) Afterwards, other automakers (in California) started to comply. The car, which in practical usage terms, was no different than other automobiles [even in terms of speed], got approximately 60-70miles per charge. The average american is said to drive about 29miles per day. It came with a battery recharger you could keep in your garage that allowed you to recharge it every night. Now, taking a trip out of town... er... that... I dont know.

However, from the very beginning, oil companies fought the making of electric stations and paid for editorials against electric vehicles. They also donated money in the fight against the 1990 California mandate for creating electric cars. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) which pushed for the law, went into negotiations with the American Automakers based on the outside pressure they were recieving. The "mandate" was now based on demand. That is to say, if the automakers didn't make electric cars, there were no repercussions, they just had to show that the demand for electric cars was not there.

And LARGE demand there was not. Critics say GM didn't aggressively market the car to the American people. GM counters by saying that it did spend money on advertisements, but the response was very small. GM would eventually close its EV-1 division in 2001.

Automakers would later sue the California Air Resources Board with the support of the curent Bush Administration. Bush would also offer the automotive industry $1.2BILLION for R&D for hydrogen cell development. With talks about the "potential" of the hydrogen fuel cells now in the forefront, the CARB had to vote on the future of the electric cars. The mandate, as a whole, was killed in 2003. Consequently, all of the electric cars that were on the streets in the hands of regular consumers were leased, not owned. There was no option to buy. Slowly, ALL of the EV-1's were being seized by GM. The other automakers would do the same. There was a mass recall of every single electrical car. Not one was spared. Once the lease was up, the car company was reclaiming the car, with threat of being charged with felony theft if not allowed to repossess their vehicles. In June 2004, the very last electric car was taken off the streets. In February 2005, GM had only 78 EV-1's locked in storage in Burbank, California. Environmental activists raised 1.9 million dollars to buy the remaining cars, but GM didn't respond. However, the electric cars would not end up on that lot. They would later find a new home.

It is true that, even though you could fully recharge the battery EVERY DAY, some consumers had concern about the mileage (60-80miles per recharge) of the cars, though... unless taken a road trip, it wouldn't be an issue for most drivers. Iris and Stanford Ovshinsky, inventors in Michigan, created a new superior type of technology for batteries. The first EV1 used standard lead acid batteries. GM, consequently, would buy majority share of Ovshinsky's company. After the purchase, Ovshinsky began to feel that GM wasn't eager to actually use his battery. GM would even censure Ovshinsky for publicizing his battery without GM's permission and was told not to run advertisements in national publications. Stanford's battery would not actually be used in the EV-1 for more than two years after its creation. What would the perception have been if the electric car was initially marketed with much higher mileage potential? Who knows. It is interesting to note that GM would later sell control of Ovshinsky's battery company to the clear competitor of electric cars: Chevron.

There was a 1995 memo from the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association that shows they sought to hire a public relations firm to manage what they considered a "grassroots and education campaign" to create a climate to repeal the 1990 mandate. The memo explicitly states their challenge was greater consumer acceptance of electric vehicles. This is the auto industry, not the oil industry. Why would automakers fight electric cars? Was it just because they didn't like being told what to do? Was it a fear of just losing profits on cars sitting in the showroom? The way that American automotive companies thought that smaller hybrid/fuel-efficient cars weren't profitable in the late 90's? The EV-1 doesn't require a combustible engine either. The replacement and maintenance of combustible engine parts (and labor) makes up a large share of a car companies annual revenue. The electric cars require no oil... no oil filters... no alternators, etc, etc. The question should be asked, would it be in the best interest of the automakers to make electric cars? We know they CAN make it... do they want to? Creating a clean car also subliminally sends a message about all the other vehicles they create. Simultaneously, GM began to promote the Hummer brand. In 2002, there was a economic stimulus package that featured a $6,000 tax break for small business owners to buy Hummers. GM took ownership of Hummer from AM General in December 1999 and (coincidentally) shut down its plant-line for the EV-1 a month later.

What about the current administration? We all know Bush is an oil man. Dick Cheney is a former CEO of Halliburton. Condoleeza Rice is a former member of the Board of Directors of Chevron. Andy Card is a former VP for General Motors. He was also President and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association at the time they campaigned to kill the 1990 California Mandate. So, we know where this current crew's loyalty lays. Where have previous administrations been on this issue?

In October 1973, OPEC placed an embargo on the United States and Western Europe, refusing to transport oil as punishment for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The price of a barrel of oil subsequently went from $3/per barrel (wow!!!) to $15/per barrel in 1979. In June of 1979 it jumped again to $20/barrel.

In response to the OPEC embargo, the United States government created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. From 1975 to 1985, the fuel standards of vehicles nearly doubled from about 15mpg to about 27-28mpg. It hasn't changed in the last Twenty years! As the US suffered in the late 70's from the OPEC issue, gas prices rose, inflation swelled and the American people grew angry. Jimmy Carter's approval rating dropped to 25%, lower than Nixon during Watergate! He gave what has now been coined his "malaise" speech in July of 1979 (shortly after oil jumped another $5 to 20/barrel). The speech was about energy, but as well, the current status of the country and American confidence. It was the Carter administration that pushed to get the higher fuel standards. In this speech, he talked not only of what we could do as individual Americans (more public transportation, less driving, watching our thermostats) but also of our view of the country. How we could cheer ourselves up. How to raise our confidence of the country. It came across with a dreary tone. It helped lose him the election of 1980. Reagan had a different view. There was nothing wrong with America... just something wrong with the former leader. He coined his now famous "Its Morning in America" as an optimistic view of the status of the nation. And to some degree, it definately changed the perception of a lot of people, but substantively, it meant we weren't going to take any aggressive action to wean ourselves off foreign oil. Carter said we wouldn't import more oil than we were at that particular time in the 70's. Reagan had no such ambition. He would even go so far as to remove the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put up as a symbol of aggressive energy reform.

There was going to be deregulation. Reagan didn't believe in telling corporations what to do. Also, the mid 1980's saw the OPEC nations agree to lower the price of oil which made energy reform even less enticing. Its hard to get off heroine when your drug dealer keeps lowering your price.

The Clinton administration essentially cut a deal with the automakers. Reagan (being a Republican) flatly ignored raising fuel standards on car companies, the Clinton administration compromised. The auto industry would spend "some" time looking at hybrid (gas/electric) cars and the Administration would not push to increase fuel standards. The government poured in money but the US automakers didn't put any hybrids on the road in the 90's. And when the younger Bush took the White House in 2001, they totally walked away from R&D of hybrids. Ironically, the Japanese saw the money the former Clinton administration put into hybrids and (worried about being behind the curve), it was the Japanese car makers who were the first to create hybrids. This isn't the topic at hand, but when I talk to people about US automakers laying off thousands of workers, shutting down entire plants and scrapping/restructuring retirement packages... and they want to complain about competing with countries with lower waged workers and no health benefits to pay out (while both true), they can not avoid the blatant incompetence on their part that has cost their companies BILLIONS of dollars. Thats not done by regular workers, its done by EXTREMELY OVERPAID corporate heads who take none of the blame.

When will we FINALLY see a hydrogen car on the streets? WE'RE STILL WAITING!!! That was part of the "reasoning" for killing the electric cars. Fuel cells aren't more efficient. Estimates say they would take 3 to 4 times the energy of the electric battery, but fundamentally, there were 5 major problems with hydrogen cars:

1) the current cost for the hydrogen fuel cell is near a million dollars

2) a regular sized car doesn't have enough room to store the fuel required for practical driving

3) hydrogen fuel costs 2 to 3 times as much as gasoline

4) we'd have to create a new infrastructure across the nation of "hydrogen" stations

5) competing technologies will still remain more practical

The automotive industry doesn't want change. This is one reason why de-regulation doesn't work. I wont turn this into an anti-Republican blog, there will be time for that MANY a time in the future... but companies aren't going to do whats in our best interest... only their own. Remember...

seat belts ----------------- > had to become law FIRST

higher standards --------- > had to become law FIRST

air bags ------------------- > had to become law FIRST