The Truth About Liberalism: #4 Guns

A lot of people with otherwise no political knowledge seem to "know" that Democrats are all pansies and will take away everybody's' guns. I even saw an add in our local paper last fall saying that John Kerry had voted for a bill that would ban all pump action shotguns. If that were true, it would anger many people who like to hunt, because they probably use a pump action shotgun and aren't doing any harm. I was pretty sure this add wasn't true, though. So, reading the fine print in the add, I saw that they were talking about bill s.123 (I don't remember the real #). One quick google search later, I discovered this bill was in fact, an assault weapons ban, which made illegal pump action shotguns with certain human hunting additions. The name that I still remember being banned was the "Streetsweeper" shotgun. Not a lot of game hides out on a street, and anyways, it's illegal to hunt from a street or road. This leaves us with the conclusion that this gun is meant for combat/killing people use. Try as Dick Cheney might to legalize it, there is not one state where you can buy a license to hunt people. So this add was misleading, taking advantage of the preheld superstition among hillbillies (and some other not so hillbilly people) that Democrats hate guns, and want to take them away.

If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know that I (like all progressives) am a big fan of the constitution, especially the bill of rights. Included in this bill is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We don't pick and choose which parts of the constitution are we'll follow(like Republicans do). However, this is one of the few places I'm aware of where conservatives take a liberal approach to this sentence and liberals take a more conservative approach. Republicans interpret it broadly to mean that anybody can carry whatever kind of gun they want, while Democrats see the need to keep such things as assault weapons out of the hands of the general public. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, assault weapons were muskets, the same guns that people hunted with. Of course there were cannons, but the average person couldn't afford one, a modern equivalent would be the cruise (or maybe even nuclear) missile. The rules for possession of cruise missiles aren't talked about much because nobody's got (or can get) one.

The fact that Democrats feel it wise to keep guns meant for killing people efficiently off of the street is used by their opponents who twist it to mean that Democrats are anti-guns and anti-hunting. The fact that we care about the environment and don't want people shooting everything that moves is also used to strengthen this argument at times. Ironically, I and most Democrats believe that there is nothing wrong with hunting or the guns involved in it. If people want to shoot guns designed to kill people, they can join the army. Or, if they're not willing to take that step and they just like to shoot a big gun, I don't see anything wrong with keeping this assault weapon locked up when it's not being shot at a range. Of course, in that second instance, there would need to be a strict licensing process (I'm not sure if such a system exists or not).

The only major area I've left that Democrats take a beating over is handguns. People will insist that our crime rate is lower than countries with low gun ownership because we carry guns and can protect themselves. This is some flawed logic because there has been no scientific studies to prove that carrying a gun deters criminals, the only studies on this have looked at the rate of crime as it correlates to gun ownership in different countries. Even this logic is flawed, because they're picking and choosing which countries to talk about (like they do with the constitution). Some countries with high gun ownership rates have the highest rates of violent crime in the world. In Iraq, each household is allowed to have an AK47, and look how that stops crime.

I don't carry a handgun, and I've never been mugged. The same thing goes for my whole family. And everybody I know in fact. The fact that there are laws requiring you to be a responsible adult and a law abiding citizen before you can carry a handgun are no reason to bash Democrats. Would you rather felons and gangsters could just legally buy all the guns they wanted?

I'm getting off the topic now (but that stuff really frustrates me). My point is, the constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms, no liberal is interested in denying you a right provided by the constitution.

White House Theatrics

If you don't know much about the FBI searching a Democratic congressman's office last week and the ensuing battle over separation of powers, read this comprehensive msnbc story.

Now that everything's heating up, with even Bush supporters questioning the legality of this raid, the top 3 people in the Justice Department are making threats of resignation if they are ordered to return the stuff they seized during that raid. The biggest fish among them is Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General. I think they've been asses about the whole thing, but if they want to resign, I'm not going to stop them. Remember, this is Alberto "killa" Gonzales, the guy who thinks the stuff practiced at Abu Ghraib was legal, that sending prisoners to other countries and then looking the other way as they're tortured is fine, and that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to prisoners if you don't want them to. If Bush is forced to find a replacement for him with his current approval ratings... well, let's just say that replacement shouldn't be to controversial. The other two I don't know so much about, but if they're on Killa's side they can't be too good.

That said, I'd be surprised if anybody resigned over this. Now for more opinions.

I'm on the side of this debate that thinks the executive branch has, yet again, greatly overstepped it's bounds. I believe that somebody should be able to enforce the laws and investigate possible criminal activity, but having the FBI raid the guy's office and take whatever they want is too much. This practice of having the federal law enforcement raid the office of an opposition politician is usually one reserved for dictators and Vladimir Putin.

An example of how this should've gone can be seen in the investigation into Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. The prosecutor was investigating a crime, so he'd do things like calling Libby and Rove in to testify, possibly issuing subpoenas for some stuff he felt he needed to look at. He didn't have the FBI raid their offices because nobody would've stood for it. His career would've been over, and he'd probably be in jail.

You know, supposedly, the FBI has a video of this Democrat accepting $100k from an informant, and they then found $90k of it in his freezer at home. If I were faced with this proof and I knew I was guilty, I'd fess up, like that Republican in California a couple months ago. The fact that Mr. Jefferson still maintains his innocence makes me suspicious of the whole thing. That said, even though he's a Democrat, I don't have a lot of faith in his progressiveness because he's from the south (Louisiana).

I guess I'm done, have a nice weekend.

Iowa Gubernatorial Candidates

After watching the debate on IPTV today between the three (there might be more, but I haven't heard of them) democratic candidates for governor, I feel I should throw the half ounce or so of political weight I have behind one.

First, I'm going to summarize what I perceived to be the views of the candidates from this debate:

Chet Culver's seems to be emphasizing economic growth and growing industries like ethanol and other alternative fuel production. This would, he says, would help renew Iowa's economy and make us the leader in the nation of renewable/alternative energy. He is also a former teacher, and says that if elected, he'd be the only governor in the country now who's been in the classroom in the last 2 decades. He didn't say when the last time was that he taught, but I think that experience is kind of minimized if he stopped teaching 19 years ago.

Ed Fallon wants to really clean up the government, end handouts to big companies who are just going to leave Iowa, and instead give reasonably to Iowa based businesses and interests. He said, for instance that he supports tax breaks for wind energy to help advance that. He got points with me early on by blasting NAFTA, citing all of the manufacturing jobs that have left Iowa and the U.S., and specifically the closing of the Maytag plant last week (I think that was in Newton). Mr. Fallon also gives the impression of a fun and nice guy to be around. He was the only one I think who joked around, and he seemed to be the biggest supporter of the average person. The only slight drawback is that he said he would repeal legislation banning sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools and day care centers if elected governor and given the chance.

Last but not least, Mike Blouin. He has the most political experience of the three, at the state and federal levels, and it shows. He is also a former teacher, and on the economy, cleaning up the government, and developing Iowa's alternative energy resources, his views aren't extremely different from the other two. Blouin's only slight drawback is that he is against abortion, although he says (very strongly I thought) that he will not change the state's abortion laws either way, instead improving access to other means like adoption and birth control. This, he hopes would bring down the number of abortions without changing the laws. I can live with that. He was asked a tough question by Culver just after he explained his views and plans on abortion about why, then, had he introduced a bill into state legislature banning all abortions? That was a tough attack (and by far the most hostile moment of the debate), and I was sure he wouldn't be able to parry it and that his campaign was over, but after taking a second to think, he responded that that was back in the 70's, that Culver had also changed his views on issues over the years. In those years, he said that he'd decided his current plan would be better and more effective. If it comes down to a close race and a tough political fight with Jim Nussle (the republican candidate), Mike Blouin will certainly have what it takes.

I'm not too worried about Iowa if any of these three men are elected governor.

With that said, I support Ed Fallon. Chet Culver seems to be involved a little bit with big interests/companies, and I thought that Mike Blouin had the least clearly defined plan. Fallon is also going to fight for the people, and he was the only one who kept everything positive. Culver and Blouin seemed to be taking little jabs at each other the whole time. He has a clearly defined, good plan for the state, and he will stay away from large companies and sources of money.

If you missed the big debate (which you probably did), IPTV will run it again tomorrow (Sunday) at 6 p.m.

The Truth About Liberalism: #3 Religion

Because my thinking, values, and political ideas are progressive, I take a lot of crap from people who really have nothing else on me. It's worse around election times, but there are die-hards that keep it up all the time. Most of the time I just ignore it, because I get along with these people fine when we're not talking about politics. But if there's one thing that really pisses me off, it's when anybody attacks my Christianity because I'm not in total agreement with the religious right (right as in the direction, not correctness). I'm not the only person who takes this crap. Inevitably, any Democrat, and even Republicans who aren't conservative enough, will be criticized for not being a good Christian when election time rolls around.

And the funny thing is, the religious right is wrong, about almost everything. Liberals are as good or better Christians than those nut jobs. Let me just condense their strong views that Jesus himself would agree with 100% (so they say):
1) God loves everybody, and wants everybody to find salvation, but gays, lesbians, anybody who's not 100% heterosexual shouldn't have anything to do with the church.
2) Killing is bad, God decides when people should die, and we're pro-life, but we believe the death penalty is a great tool with many uses, and we support politicians who think the same way. So really, we're not pro-life, we're anti-women's' rights.
3) God created the world, and charged us as it's stewards, so we should just trash the place.
4) The constitution says religion should have no bearing on the laws, and not everybody is a Christian, but our rules should be the law of the land, no matter what religion you are.
5) Science and school are great, until they start teaching things that don't fit into the Bible's teaching exactly. That's just blasphemy.
6) Despite the first amendment, if you wouldn't write/say it in church, you shouldn't be able to write/say it anywhere in public.
I could go on for days, but I'll just skip to the final rule: If you don't agree 100% with all of the above, you're going to hell.

I don't know about you, but that seems pretty hypocritical, and that's not my idea of what Jesus would do. This is where the progressive ideals of tolerance and open-mindedness prove far more in line with Christian values than any that the religious wrong spouts.

I try to be a good Christian. I make it to church almost every Sunday, I take good care of the environment, I don't harass, assault, etc people, I don't tell racist jokes, and I actually think about stuff instead of just believing the wrong's propaganda.

In conclusion, I'm tolerant (that's a liberal and Christian ideal), and you're entitled to think whatever you want under the constitution and the laws of Christianity.

But keep your theocracy off of my democracy.

Staff Shake-Ups

With the recent resignation of Porter Goss as head of the CIA, I feel that I must write something about the White House's new gameplan. I don't believe for a minute that either of these men resigned without any push from the top. George W. Bush seems to think that a couple new faces in the area might help his party not do so bad in the fall elections. I personally don't see how he thinks this will help him either way, because in recent months, Republicans have been interfering with his plans almost more than Democrats. But his lying press secretary was replaced with a Fox News analyst, and it looks like Porter Goss is going to be replaced with one of the masterminds of the warrant-less wire taps, General Hayden (the other mastermind being W himself). This was his chance to show the country that he's trying to make changes for the better. What the hell is he thinking?

I'm going to go in chronological order, starting with the resignation of Mr. McClellan. The news clip I remember had Bush and McC. on the White House lawn, and Bush told the press that McC. was resigning because his job was high-stress ("You all are hard to deal with") and he needed a break. Well duh! If you're feeding the press what they know to be lies day in and day out, they catch on pretty soon, and then your days of peace are over. Those press people can be vicious when you lie to them and America (Fox isn't included in this group). I don't doubt McC. got pretty stressed out in the four years or so he had the job. Of course, a fellow liberal wondered if he was resigning because his conscience couldn't take it anymore... that option was thrown out pretty quick. I don't even see why this position was the first to be given a new face, except that maybe the big guns thought that Scott McClellan was no longer trusted by the American people (they'd be right on that, partly). A new mouth spewing White House lies isn't going to change anything, especially now that the guy's from Fox.

On to Mr. Goss. The man brought in to clean house, and make the CIA a potent weapon again. Well, he cleaned house alright, anybody who didn't support and believe in the war was fired or resigned in protest. Needless to say, a kind of brain drain ensued, and left the CIA flopping around like a fish out of water, except getting less accomplished. This was a guy that needed to go, and the CIA still needs reform, but the general is the wrong person to do it. New allegations are out this week that the wire tapping was even more out of control than we knew. Is this the kind of person we want in control of any agency?

More importantly, at a time when Sec. Rumsfeld is increasing the reach of the military, should we really have a general in charge of the civilian intelligence gathering agency? I have nothing against regular soldiers, but at the tip top (Rumsfeld), the military has overstepped its boundaries time and again. What will happen when the military has some iffy intel, and somebody asks the CIA to verify it? It would be like going to a doctor for a second opinion on something, and then going to another doctor who is the first guy's best friend. Can you really trust the second opinion?

Immigration

It's time for me to weigh in on the slightly old issue of illegal aliens living and working in this country, most of them from Mexico. I'm for letting most or all of them stay, because they are still human beings, and shipping them back to Mexico only has negative effects all around.

Let me explain: If the economic situation in Mexico was good (it isn't), all of these people wouldn't feel the need to sneak into the U.S. at great personal risk to get a crappy job that few self respecting, American born citizens would take. If you force a lot of these people back to Mexico, you've got millions more people competing for the same amount of poverty level jobs, and the situation worsens. Unless you build a huge fence across the border like the House bill will, you won't keep those people out of America.

With that said, there are some (actually many) things I don't like about illegal immigration. When listening to some expert on t.v. talking about how the economy needs the cheap labor that immigrants provide, it seems like a good idea to just let the system continue in the interest of saving money and the economy. This is not a good thing, because you're keeping the poor poor. Even if they think it's a good paying job, we shouldn't use that to justify paying them a pittance. I'll admit, right now there are sectors of the economy totally dependent on cheap labor. This makes us no better that the companies that use sweatshops in Asia. It will hurt, but we've got to start paying everybody equally. When jobs that would previously be filled by illegals begin to pay a respectable amount, citizens will start to take compete for these jobs, and the whole thing will start to fix itself, because you've got fewer job openings for illegals. Also (I'm hoping), if they're making more money, the integration of these immigrants into American society will be started/sped up, and some barriers (e.g. racism) will be broken down that are holding many Latinos and Hispanics back.

Another thing I don't like is the idea of illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes using tax-payer funded services (roads, schools, you name it). Let me take some of that back, you can't buy much of anything without paying some kind of tax, so they don't pay as much in taxes as citizens. I don't want to keep anybody from driving on a road or going to school, but you should have to contribute just like the rest of America. Of course, I don't know to what extent most illegals make use of public services, so I can't go into depth on that one.

That said, here's a plan that is actually not mine, but a friend who aligns himself with the Republican side of things (although he's pretty liberal for a conservative), which I think is pretty good. I have tweaked it a little bit: All persons who are in the country illegally have a grace period during which they can register somewhere (like the local courthouse) and get themselves on a path to citizenship or legal residency. Once registered, they would have to show a couple times per year that they are working, they would have to keep their noses clean, and they would either not use public services until they were a tax paying citizen (very impractical, inhumane, and racist-I don't like it), or they would pay some taxes and have limited access to these services (better). Within a year or two, Mr./Ms. Illegal Immigrant would become an American.

This, on top of making it easier to come to America legally (or making the public more aware of how easy it is to do it legally if it is already, I don't know), and maybe helping the Mexican economy would pretty much eliminate any immigration problem we have.

Note: On the issue of whether illegals have rights or not, the Declaration of Independence states clearly that all people are given certain inalienable rights by their creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights aren't just for people who are white and born in America.