I don’t drive on freeways much anymore, but are there still trucks that have signs on the back that state something like “This truck pays $4,362 per year in taxes.”
Shouldn’t there also be a sign that says the government provides $x,xxx per year in services to this truck”?
What is the pro-rata cost of highways for each truck? Snow-plowing? Police investigation of crashes? Police protection of auto drivers harassed by tailgating truckers?
It seems more that someone benefits from taxes the more they complain about taxes. Corporations want well-educated employees, but they don’t want to pay the taxes to educate future employees. They want to sue those they claim have wronged them, but they don’t want to pay the taxes for courts. They want laws to protect their interests, but don’t want to pay the costs of enforcement.
Corporations and others want a military that costs more than then next two or three next largest militaries, but they don’t want to pay the taxes to support that military.
Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Assumptions of a gun slinger
A picture of a man with a gun at his hip accompanies an article about guns at the State Capitol, "Capitol debate triggers show of weapons", Jim Ragsdale, Star Tribune, 2013-08-20. The bearer of the gun said he feels safer with his own weapon.
His first assumption is that he is under threat of bodily harm by somebody. Are any of the state representatives or senators going to threaten him with a gun? Do any of these politicians carry a gun in the State Capitol? Maybe he is afraid Capitol security might throw him out.
His second assumption is that if he is threatened by someone with a gun that he can pull out his gun, take off the safety, aim, disable the other person before that person even fires a shot, and not hit any bystanders. Even police with extensive firearms training can't accomplish that very often. Think of the Fort Hood shooting where a police officer with a marksmanship award was downed before she could hit the shooter.
His third assumption is that nobody will sneak up behind him and grab his weapon. Many police officers have been killed with their own weapons.
His fourth assumption is that he is a "law-abiding" citizen with a permit to carry and therefore should be trusted to use his gun responsibly. "Law-abiding" citizens with permits to carry have deliberately killed others with their guns. The fired employee who killed the father of another hearing witness was such a "law abiding" citizen.
By contrast, Federal law prohibits guns in Federal facilities. The penalty for having "a firearm or other dangerous weapon" in a Federal facility is a fine or up to one year in prison or both. If the Federal facility is a court the prison term can be up to two years. See "18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities".
Interestingly, the Texas Legislature considers tampons more dangerous than guns. Its guards "confiscated tampons as possible threats to lawmakers’ safety" but waved those with guns through, "Guns at the Capitol? Beware of the recoil", Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune, 2013-08-23.
His first assumption is that he is under threat of bodily harm by somebody. Are any of the state representatives or senators going to threaten him with a gun? Do any of these politicians carry a gun in the State Capitol? Maybe he is afraid Capitol security might throw him out.
His second assumption is that if he is threatened by someone with a gun that he can pull out his gun, take off the safety, aim, disable the other person before that person even fires a shot, and not hit any bystanders. Even police with extensive firearms training can't accomplish that very often. Think of the Fort Hood shooting where a police officer with a marksmanship award was downed before she could hit the shooter.
His third assumption is that nobody will sneak up behind him and grab his weapon. Many police officers have been killed with their own weapons.
His fourth assumption is that he is a "law-abiding" citizen with a permit to carry and therefore should be trusted to use his gun responsibly. "Law-abiding" citizens with permits to carry have deliberately killed others with their guns. The fired employee who killed the father of another hearing witness was such a "law abiding" citizen.
By contrast, Federal law prohibits guns in Federal facilities. The penalty for having "a firearm or other dangerous weapon" in a Federal facility is a fine or up to one year in prison or both. If the Federal facility is a court the prison term can be up to two years. See "18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities".
Interestingly, the Texas Legislature considers tampons more dangerous than guns. Its guards "confiscated tampons as possible threats to lawmakers’ safety" but waved those with guns through, "Guns at the Capitol? Beware of the recoil", Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune, 2013-08-23.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Export cones, not drones
Once upon a time, Yemen had rich areas for growing grapes, pomegranates, oranges, and the famed Yemeni coffee. Then came oil in Saudi Arabia and Yemeni men flocked there for work. The women cut trees for firewood and the terraces eroded for lack of maintenance. Water which once could be found at 60 meters is not found until 850 meters or more. Now Yemenis fight over water. See "Postcard from Yemen", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2013-05-08.
"Trees have the deepest system of root in soil. They evaporate water from sometimes 50 meters deep level of soil. It increase humidity in air and probabilities of rains, dew-sources of water." Comment by mioffe2000 in response to "Postcard from Yemen".
This comment got me thinking about "The Man Who Planted Trees" about a shepherd who planted acorns over a wide area that had been deforested by charcoal burners. The land was dry and suitable only for grazing sheep.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees, the story is a work of fiction. However, people all over the world have planted millions of trees in many countries to stop desertification and alleviate global warming. This article mentions a few of these projects.
What would the effect be on world peace if the U.S. exported cones instead of drones to some of the trouble spots of the world. Well, not exactly cones because evergreens are not suitable for many areas. Actually, for a small fraction of the military budget, the U.S. could send teams to plant trees of any size, from seeds to semi-mature trees a few meters tall. It would take a few years to bring better rainfall back to areas where water is scarce. More available water would reduce tensions among various groups and go a long way to reducing the hold terrorists have on some areas.
"Trees have the deepest system of root in soil. They evaporate water from sometimes 50 meters deep level of soil. It increase humidity in air and probabilities of rains, dew-sources of water." Comment by mioffe2000 in response to "Postcard from Yemen".
This comment got me thinking about "The Man Who Planted Trees" about a shepherd who planted acorns over a wide area that had been deforested by charcoal burners. The land was dry and suitable only for grazing sheep.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees, the story is a work of fiction. However, people all over the world have planted millions of trees in many countries to stop desertification and alleviate global warming. This article mentions a few of these projects.
What would the effect be on world peace if the U.S. exported cones instead of drones to some of the trouble spots of the world. Well, not exactly cones because evergreens are not suitable for many areas. Actually, for a small fraction of the military budget, the U.S. could send teams to plant trees of any size, from seeds to semi-mature trees a few meters tall. It would take a few years to bring better rainfall back to areas where water is scarce. More available water would reduce tensions among various groups and go a long way to reducing the hold terrorists have on some areas.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Helping the sick and injured is age-old
Many hunter-gatherer cultures helped those who could not contribute fully. Many of us have read stories about hunter-gatherer cultures caring for the elderly and healing the sick, but do we know how much they cared for those younger who could never contribute a great deal to the group?
As it is, archeologists have found cases of primitive societies caring for people that couldn't even feed themselves or could not keep up as the group traveled. See "Ancient Bones that Tell a Story of Compassion", James Gorman, New York Times, 2012-12-17.
The archeologists, Lorna Tilley and Mark Oxenham, ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it."
These pre-historic cultures were close-knit communities that knew all of their members. It is hard not to care for those in a small community. But what happens as the community becomes larger, more diverse, and more dispersed? Children move to another city or even another country. People associate more with those at the factory or office than they do with people on their own block. Driving out the garage and down the street we may not even meet many of our neighbors. We don't know who is sick and disabled. Even when we know our own neighbors, we aren't aware of all of their problems. It took a mail carrier asking a neighbor about my step-father before anybody realized that he had died.
Even when we know a neighbor is ill, do we have the skills needed to care for the neighbor? Our expectations of health-care are much higher than in pre-historic times. In the last few centuries, charitable groups established hospitals to take care of people who couldn't be cared for at home. But our expectations became even higher and many of those groups could not raise sufficient funds to give care to all who needed it. Hospitals needed to charge all comers in order to have the funds; those without enough money often did without needed care.
If we are to replicate in today's dispersed societies the attention given to the sick and injured in primitive societies, wouldn't we need to have universal health care? We still must ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it." We certainly have many politicians who are more concerned with guaranteeing people access to guns than guaranteeing people access to health care.
As it is, archeologists have found cases of primitive societies caring for people that couldn't even feed themselves or could not keep up as the group traveled. See "Ancient Bones that Tell a Story of Compassion", James Gorman, New York Times, 2012-12-17.
The archeologists, Lorna Tilley and Mark Oxenham, ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it."
These pre-historic cultures were close-knit communities that knew all of their members. It is hard not to care for those in a small community. But what happens as the community becomes larger, more diverse, and more dispersed? Children move to another city or even another country. People associate more with those at the factory or office than they do with people on their own block. Driving out the garage and down the street we may not even meet many of our neighbors. We don't know who is sick and disabled. Even when we know our own neighbors, we aren't aware of all of their problems. It took a mail carrier asking a neighbor about my step-father before anybody realized that he had died.
Even when we know a neighbor is ill, do we have the skills needed to care for the neighbor? Our expectations of health-care are much higher than in pre-historic times. In the last few centuries, charitable groups established hospitals to take care of people who couldn't be cared for at home. But our expectations became even higher and many of those groups could not raise sufficient funds to give care to all who needed it. Hospitals needed to charge all comers in order to have the funds; those without enough money often did without needed care.
If we are to replicate in today's dispersed societies the attention given to the sick and injured in primitive societies, wouldn't we need to have universal health care? We still must ask "what care for the sick and injured says about the culture that provided it." We certainly have many politicians who are more concerned with guaranteeing people access to guns than guaranteeing people access to health care.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Debates? What debates?
According to the newspapers, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their third and final debate last night, supposedly on foreign policy. As with the previous two, I didn't bother watching. What for? See What do the debates prove?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)