Archive for June, 2012

Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement – Destroying National Sovereignty

Posted by Troy on 13th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

A document was leaked today showing that Obama has been working on a Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement.  Basically, the way it will work is that it will force American companies into following US standards for pollution (etc) even if they are in a foreign country.  Conversely, if a foreign company were to set up a factory in America, they could be able to not follow our standards.  A foreign company that doesn’t want to follow EPA guidelines could appeal to an international body.  Likewise, an American company in China could appeal a Chinese law.

This is moronic.  Again, it is an attack against the concept of national sovereignty.  There is no way Machiavelli would approve.  As strong as America is, we are not stronger than the rest of the world combined.  You should never entangle yourself with stronger power.  You can never get out.  Also, if our companies have to follow our expensive regulations and the foreign company does not, who do you think has a competitive advantage?  Do you think that this international body is going to rule in our favor? I’d bet against it.  We are not well liked.  Just look at how the UN treats us.  That’s how this entity would treat us as well.

I think that this trade agreement is short-sighted at best.  If it was just Obama that wanted it, I would assume that he wanted to destroy American businesses.  However, Romney wants it too.  My theory then is that they think that there will be an influx of businesses to America, and we’d have more jobs.  It could be that the Chamber of Commerce (who is advocating the bill) believes that it will shield our companies from foreign laws (I think they are underestimating how much other countries would love to spite us).  In the long term, I cannot see how this will benefit US companies.  I believe that it will give greater competitive advantage to other countries.  This seems as self-defeating and short-sighted as the G-20.  We need to respect our own national sovereignty.

Long Live the Constitution!

Castle Doctrine Increases Homicides

Posted by Troy on 12th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

A Texas A & M study has determined that the Castle Doctrine increases the homicide rates…of course, they under play the fact that it is the “justified homicide” rate.  Let’s examine the claim.

First, I would question if this study was done without an agenda behind it.  I would imagine that that this is a liberal professor or student that wants to demonize the law in the face of Trayvon Martin.

Second, the study postulates that it does not deter crime (crime rates stay steady).  I don’t think that it would deter crime.  The fact of the matter is that it probably has not made things much more dangerous for a robber.  There is always a chance that a homeowner is going to say, “To hell with the law,” and defend themselves anyway under the “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six” doctrine.  I don’t think that criminals have changed their outlook at all.

Third, the study postulates that criminals have armed themselves to defend themselves against homeowners defending themselves.  Yeah, because I’m sure that criminals have not considered getting a gun until the mean old homeowners armed themselves.  They were there to innocently rob a house.

Fourth, the study has no differentiation as to if the criminals were killed or if the homeowners were killed because of the Castle Doctrine.

Fifth, based upon the fourth reason and the fact that reasons two and three are merely postulations on the part of the ones in charge of the study, one has to assume that the answer to number one is that the researchers were bias and set out to prove a point.  As such, the entire study is trash.

Let’s assume that they are right though.  Let’s assume that all those who were killed were the homeowners, not the criminals.  If this is the case, my message to homeowners is to move up to a 12 gauge shotgun.  Most robbers carry pistols due to its size.  In battle of pistol vs shotgun, shotgun wins 95% of the time.  People have the duty to survive.  Not to retreat.  Not to stand your ground.  In the face of a criminal that may want to kill you, you need to do what you need to do to survive.  If that is run as fast as you can, then I suggest you run.  If it is fill him full of lead, then you should do that.

Long Live the Constitution!

Occupy Wall Street – the Left’s Tea Party

Posted by Troy on 11th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

After seeing the Tea Party’s effectiveness in Wisconsin, Van Jones and Bill Maher want Occupy Wall Street to become the Tea Party.  This is, of course, what the Democrats have been hoping for.  However, OWS has been less than forthcoming in the transformation from rabble to political powerhouse.  First of all, this is against their nature.  OWS is not interested in becoming a voting block for the Democrats.  The “leaders” have already expressed a concern that that would happen and want to operate “outside the electoral process” as it were.  Of course, since that’s the only legitimate way to effect American politics, you really gotta wonder what they have in mind.

I have another question, do you really think that OWS occupying the primary process the way the Tea Party does would help the Democrats?  You have gotta be kidding me.  The Tea Party is considered extreme for demanding Constitutional government and fiscal sanity.  Of course, all the media people will only talk about OWS’s stance on crony capitalism, so they completely ignore the insane levels of socialism the bulk of the protesters want.  So, let’s see…the Republican candidate  get up there and talk about the American Revolution and our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution, and the Democrat candidate gets up there and talks about the French Revolution, Marxism, and Revolution.  Gee, I wonder who would beat the cold crap out of who?

America would always choose the Constitutional candidate against the Revolutionary.  The Tea Party’s dream candidate talks about balanced budgets and Constitutional limits on governmental powers.  The Occupy Wall Street’s dream candidate talks about taxing the rich and making everything free.  The Democrats might as well drop this little pipe dream.  It’s a lost cause either way.

Long Live the Constitution!

Snow White and the Huntsman

Posted by Troy on 10th June 2012 in Entertainment

It’s an enjoyable movie, and a nice adaptation of a children’s story for adults.  The effects for the evil queen’s spells and the dark forest are spectacular.  I will say that there are parts where the scripting feels a little forced.  Kristen Stewart does a decent job, but I don’t believe she will ever be known as a great actress.  However, Charlize Theron does a marvelous job.  I don’t know what it is about her, but she is able to portray the most horrible characters (Monster, Young Adult, and this movie) and make you really feel just sorry for them.

Again, this movie will not change your perception on life, but it’s an enjoyable way to pass the time.  There is some excellent action and wonderful visual effects.  I take off a few points for dialogue.

Bad Week for the Obama Administration

Posted by Troy on 7th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

Eric Holder has less and less wiggle room as the investigation narrows down.  With what we know now, it is clear that he either lied about what he knew about the Fast and the Furious, or he is utterly incompetent.  There’s really no other excuse.  Now they have wiretapping request that specifically spell out what was going on, and they were signed off on.  This means that they either knew about Fast and the Furious or they are just signing stuff without actually reading it.  Which one of these options do you like best?  I don’t know how Holder still has his job, honestly.

Now even Democrats are starting to get upset with Obama over all the security leaks.  It is clear that someone is leaking this information trying to make Obama look good, but it is destroying our ability to take advantage of these tactics going forward.  He bragged about Seal Team Six and how we found Osama, and now our doctor friend is in jail for 38 years.  We’ve taken credit for shutting down Iran’s computers.  I for one liked them not knowing it was us.  Then there is this stupid kill list thing, which is a grey area.  Personally, I would think his supporters would be pissed over the kill list and it will backfire, but we will see.

Long Live the Constitution!

Walker, Unions, and Outside Money

Posted by Troy on 6th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

Governor Scott Walker survived the recall election.  This basically means that the Unions and Wisconsin Democrats wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and everybody’s time and the money that both parties spent on campaigning.  Good going, guys.

This recall election should have never had happened.  He was recalled merely because the Left did not like the laws that he passed.  This is an inappropriate reason to have a recall.  A recall should be for cause, a moral or ethical flaw comes to light such as learning a politician had raped someone when he was younger.  The only other reason a recall should be issued is if they actively go against their campaign promise.  Scott Walker ran on stopping Obamacare.  If he had gone up there and voted in favor for it on the first day, then yes, he should be recalled.  However, Scott Walker did exactly what he said he was going to do.  As such, there was no reason for him to be recalled.  I think that the Wisconsonites understood that, and that is part of the reason why he won by nine percentage points.

Unions are a dinosaur that have outlived their usefulness.  If they were still useful, they wouldn’t have to pass card check and make belonging to a union mandatory.  If you’re worthwhile, you don’t have to force people to join.  When they started out, unions gave workers power.  Over time, they made a lot of improvements.  As working conditions improved to the point where workers were satisfied, workers stopped forming and joining unions.  Of course, unions leaned on the Democrats and passed laws to ensure that their future was secure.  In the real world, what should have happened is that the union would have been dissolved after the workers were satisfied with their working conditions.  If conditions fell again, the workers would unionize again, and the cycle would start over.  However, this did not happen, and unions were able to secure deals that have bankrupted company after company and is on the verge of bankrupting state after state.

Unable to deal with laws being passed that they didn’t approve of, the Left recalled the Governor.  Unable to deal with the fact that they lost and lost badly, they blame the influx of outside money and the fact that Scott Walker outspent Barrett.  There is nothing wrong with someone making a contribution to someone.  It is only a problem if there is an ethical violation tied to the contribution such as buying someone’s vote.  I don’t remember anyone on the Left whining about Obama outspending McCain 3 to 1 in the 2008 election, and that was after Obama said that he would only use public financing.  Of course, that promise (like any others he makes) is only good until it is in his benefit to go back on it.  It is incumbent upon a candidate to acquire campaign funds.  Imagine a case where a local election is taking place in a poor county.  The richest man in the county is running and controls a lot of the media outlets.  You mean to tell me you would be against the opponent seeking campaign help from outside the county?  As long as the advertisements that the outside parties paid for are true, there can be no problem.  The only goal of advertisements is to educate the public and present them with information.  Only the people can make a decision.  Only the people can vote.  I for one believe that people are smart enough to tell when they are being lied to.  I believe they can evaluate information and make rational decisions.  Basically, if you are against Citizens United and outside financing and other matters of the sort, what this really means is that you do not believe that people are qualified, on the whole, to make these judgement calls.  If this is the case, why bother having elections?  What should you have us do?  Shall we collect all the funds and then split it evenly?  That’s not fair, is it?  If a politician draws more donations because of his policies, shouldn’t he have the benefit of having such appeal?  If you believe that money is the only thing that matters, let’s do away with elections.  We’ll just have a fund raiser.  The candidate that raises the most money wins, and the amount raised will go to their favorite charity.

Long Live the Constitution!

Bloomberg is a Fascist

Posted by Troy on 4th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

In a world where we throw around terms like extremist and socialist and Nazi, we have lost sight of what a Fascist looks like.  No, I’m not talking about the common definition which basically equates brutal governments to Fascism.  A lot of people say that Fascism is when the corporations run the government.  This too is wrong.  No, what makes for Fascism is when the government decides what the market should decide.  The government becomes the arbiter for all decisions from what should be reported to the price of a gallon of milk or the salary of those milking the cow.

Bloomberg is a Fascist.  Pure and simple.  First, he mandated how much salt you could consume.  Now he wants to control how much sugar you drink in the form of sodas.  He wants to pass a law that will prevent places from selling soft drinks in any size greater than 16 ounces.  The reason for this is that he is sick of obesity.  Obesity increases the amount of health risks the person faces and adds cost to our medical system.  Of course, a better solution might be to allow insurers to cancel your insurance once you exceed a certain BMI, but we can’t have insurers dropping problem clients, can we?  We can’t discriminate on conditions (pre-existing or otherwise).  Such a simple clause, “We agree to cover you as long as you maintain your premiums and do not exceed a BMI of 30.”  Of course, that would be terrible, so instead we are going to make sure someone with a BMI of 21 who is really thirsty can’t buy a 32 ounce drink with their own money.  We’ll also make sure lovers can’t buy one drink and split it between the two of them to save costs.  The fact of the matter is that obesity is almost always self-inflicted.  And yet, we insist on failing to account for personal responsibility.  Perhaps people would watch their weight more if they knew gaining five more pounds would nullify their medical benefits (and yeah, I’d include Medicare and Medicaid).  If someone refuses to do the bare minimum in taking care of themselves, why should taxpayers take care of them?

Bloomberg uses his network to dole out his ideology.  He attempts to impose his will on others.  He seeks to affect the legislation of other states and cities.  He believes that the people are too stupid to see what is good for them.   To Hell with sodas, what if he tried to do the same thing with steak?  The current serving size is three ounces for meat.  Could you imagine ordering a ribeye and they bring out a three ounce hunk of meat?  The argument he uses against sodas could equally be applied to steak or coffee or tea or ice cream or anything else.  What’s to prevent him from dictating that all meals must consist of at least 50% vegetables?  The same logic applies.

I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again..why would anyone want to live in New York City right now?

Long Live the Constitution!

Green Lantern is Gay

Posted by Troy on 4th June 2012 in Current Events, Entertainment

I should start a segment called “Epic Fail.”  What a terrible business decision!  This is obviously a political statement by DC which is owned by Warner Brothers.  If you remember, these are the same people that had Superman renounce his citizenship last April.  I see a theme going on here.  They seem intent on alienating all of their potential readers.  Here’s the breakdown:

A vast minority of the population is gay.  The number is debatable, so let’s just split the difference and say 5% of Americans are gay.  While it is impossible to tell the percent that reads comic books (as I doubt a study has ever been done) and the number changes based on age, let’s assume that 10% of Americans at some point in their lives read comics.  If we infer that the same rates of incidence coincide, this means that changing Green Lantern into a gay character would possibly appeal to .5% of the population.  Let’s assume that the entire .5% come on board.  So that means that their readership is up 10.5%, correct?  Wrong!  Let’s assume that America is 50/50 on the gay issue wherein that half think it’s a sin and half think it’s acceptable.  If someone thinks it’s a sin, they’re going to stop reading it.  So that’s half right there, so we are down to 5.5% readers.  Oops.  Okay, well, that’s okay to promote this idea.  That’s an acceptable loss to turn DC into the “new age” comic (as DC is rebranding itself and recreating all its characters).  But it gets worse!  Even if the reader accepts gays, they’re probably not going to want to read the comic if they are straight.  First, they are going to get picked on, which is annoying, but more importantly is that straight guys will get no enjoyment from seeing gay men kissing in a comic.  Scantily clad females?  Sure.  Hell, if they were going to do this, they should have made Wonder Woman lesbian.  That could have upped the readership and would have gone along with her being an Amazon (as they kill all their men after they use them for procreation).

A friend of mine owns a comic book store and is a Green Lantern fan from way back.  He is dismayed by this decision.  They have officially killed this title after 70 years.  Straight men are not going to read this.  Fathers are not going to introduce their sons to the Green Lantern anymore.  The core readers, the long term fans, are going to feel betrayed and are going to abandon the title.  There’s really no going back from the decision either.  What’s he to do, say “I’m not gay anymore?”  Dear lord, they would crucify DC in a heartbeat.  The other option is do what Marvel did in the 1980s and never, ever, mention it again as they did with Northstar (which was a 3rd tier character at that), and even that move could catch DC flack.  No, the only thing they can do is kill the gay Lantern and have the Lantern Corps replace him, and don’t think that won’t cause controversy.  What a terrible decision.

This analysis is strictly a business analysis, so chill.

Long Live the Constitution!