Alex Bainter's Wishy-Washy Gun Control

Good Grief Charlie Brown, why are you always so wishy-washy, particularly on Gun Control? Because everyone else is too. There is a fine line that legislators are still trying to dance around trying to figure out the balance between total liberty and keeping the public safe. With true freedom, there are huge risks involved. With total safety where guns just suddenly don't exist anymore, then people loose their second amendment (which means change, so it can be changed again if people really get paranoid too much).

Yes, we have the right to bear arms, but I would like to point out a few things to Alex that would have helped the argument get a little stronger when stating the attempts to help balance safety and freedom. First off, our guns are already limited. Like you can't have more than three shells in your shotgun when hunting for dove, and there was a ban on assault rifles from 1994-2004. Second, you have to register your guns, and there are attempts to run background checks when you purchase them.

But, the closest thing to a suggestion of action is more gun education similar to CHL classes. Instead, there is a lot more focus and detail in the Connecticut shooter's mental state is far greater than anything else in the post and then just ends the post abruptly. Yes, crazy people do crazy things, and that point in the blog is where the argument SHOULD have sprung from. There is wishy-washy. What could have been argued is that President Obama himself has said that this whole campaign for restricting large magazines, assault rifles and creating background checks is due to that shooting, and either "yay or neigh" on that.

It seems Alex decided to dance around the subject just as much as the politicians do when discussing this topic.

Get Rid of "Marriage"

Dear Friends, we are gathered here today

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act 1996) defines marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman, therefore meaning that homosexual couples cannot gain marital licenses that come with many tax breaks, unquestioned insurance benefits, and many other legal bonuses. This legislation is now being questioned before the Supreme Court, and now the Justices are looking to define marriage so that they can rule if DOMA is even constitutional.

But I find this trivial. Marriage happens in a church of any religion and is defined by that church. Catholics marry Catholics, Muslims marry Muslims ect. And if you don't like any particular church's definition of marriage, you can still get all the magical perks of being married by getting a "secular and legal" marriage license from the a civil court. At least, for heterosexual couples.

This is just my two cents. If a judge can join two heterosexual people, without involving a church then why on earth can't two homosexual people do the same? DOMA's opposition need to scream that same sex couples cannot get "married" because religions invented the terms of marriage being between a man and woman. If a religion invented the terms, then why on earth should our government that "keeps church and state separate" use the terms invented by religions in the first place?!  The government needs to nix the term "marriage" and just coin some other term like "life union" that allows both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples to be legally bound to each other.  "Life unions" would have all the magical perks of the current definition of marriage, and then everybody can have the "happily ever afters" they want with the significant other in their lives.

Thoughts on Sunshine and Rainbows, Commentary 1

Dear Friends, we are gathered here today...

Reading DontKnowJack's post Sunshine and Rainbows was quite an interesting adventure. His ability to "call it like it is" was quite refreshing to read.

To be honest, I agree with his thinking that they are still putting feelers out as to what the majority are thinking for two reasons:
1) to cover their own butts
2) to keep the mobs of opposing sides from killing each other

 The author did a very good job of calling them out of the pure stupidity of that. Demanding that the Justices actually rule on something? The nerve...

     Actually, I do agree with his statement that "we all know it'll get there in the next 20 years". His ability to step back and look at the grander scheme of things allowed him to come to the conclusion that eventually, the opinion that religious definitions of marriage will quit being the determining factor of whether or not homosexual couples will get equal treatment in their unions and have the same magical benefits of tax breaks and insurance plans.

National Parks Need a Boost

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed a bill that created a National Park Service that is by law supposed to "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The National Park Service maintains 59 different National Parks, and several hundred Memorial sites. But these parks were not created just for the simple entertainment value of watching boiling hot water spew out of Old Faithful systematically. The protection of these lands was granted in the time period when Americans were starting to truly adopt the Teddy Roosevelt ideal of carrying a bigger stick, when Americans began to buy into the ritualistic ideas that America really was awesomer than everyone else. "Look, America is so much prettier than everywhere else, we should protect the beauty of God's blessed lands from sea to shining sea." Families all pack into the wagon and go look at the massive Grand Canyon, or the impressive Redwoods that tower hundreds of feet tall, all while listening to a dedicated Park Ranger who knows that park inside and out, and can tell you three times the information you really want to hear. Ah, those were the days, when Americans used to think they were the best country ever.

But that's also when the national government was scrambling to create economic boosts. Lets build roads that we can use so the huge amounts of poor people have a way to put a little bit of food on their family tables. Lets make National Parks so that there are jobs for scientists who went to college can study plants and have educational tour guides so that little Timmy can explore the world of science. Instead, we have a government that is more concerned with cutting the national budget down $85 billion so that they can continue to hand out money to unemployed rather than coming up with new jobs. The cuts in the budget are simply eliminating thousands of American jobs. Now little Timmy has to hike (unguided by a Park Ranger) another mile farther to an unlocked bathroom with a line, and all he can remember several years later was that was the family vacation when he really had to pee instead of the possibility of piquing an interest in science because the cool Ranger taught him about rocks when his school teacher knows only the two paragraphs in their textbook.

Sure, the $85 billion cuts may make a dent about the size of pea sized hail,  but is it necessary when your eliminating thousands of American jobs? How can the American people have more money to spend and  boost the economy when there just aren't any jobs for them to have? We are coming up on the 100th anniversary of what we know as the National Park System, and you can't even get a hiking permit in the Grand Canyon let alone a cabin in Yellowstone. Maybe I'm the only one that misses that old school wonder that a National Park brings. Maybe I'm the only one that seems to get that jobs state side are a lot more helpful that jobs over seas. Maybe Froggy and I will go visit that last Park Ranger up in Estes Park on an oxygen tank before he looses his job, that guy knew more about that area than anyone I'd ever met.

National Park Budget Cuts?

CNN reporter Jennifer Liberto claims in her article that with National Park Budget Cuts, that tourists will not have the same glorious trips to parks nationwide this summer. She paints a somewhat convincing doom and gloom picture of trash cans over flowing, bathrooms not functioning, and camp sites rendered unavailable because of lack of funding. No more magic filled adventures with a knowledgeable tour guide that has dedicated their lives to the natural beauty of our nation. Lots longer lines at the bathrooms.

The author then informs her audience of those who grew up loving those parks in their glory days, that the parks face huge financial issues. The President has chosen for 2013 to shaved off "$85 billion from the federal budget. It includes $183 million from the National Parks Service, which runs 401 national parks, memorials, lakeshores, parkways and historic sites." This budget cut destroys thousands of jobs by either furloughing them or simply eliminating them, and the author points out that even in some of the most popular parks like Yellowstone can't even afford to plow the snow off of their roads so that visitors can enter the park.

The author is sure to end by including a comment from retired park service superintendent Joan Anzelmo, saying that it was generous that private parties made donations to make it possible for the roads to be plowed, "it's not sustainable... What's going to happen next year? If these cuts continue over the long term, we're in real trouble."

Now, personally, I think that the basic framework of this article had the potential of really packing a punch that the author didn't really utilize. When spouting out the facts of just how many jobs were cut where, real numbers would have been more impactful than rounded out numbers. Rather than saying visitors have to wait longer for bathroom use, she could have come up with a more personable story like "No more taking a pit stop every time little Timmy needs to use the potty, he's gotta hike another mile to find one with a bathroom with a line." Just something in this article needs to have a little more umph in my opinion rather than the vague generalizations she used.