Street Justice

I love technology, social media, computers, instant information, and everything else that allows me to find out exactly what I want within moments of searching for it. I realize however, that with cheap, instant information comes cheap, inaccurate answers and sources. The internet is a fantastic way to learn how to change your oil, hang a picture frame, or find out what the capital of Zimbabwe is.

I do believe however, that there are some instances where social media and the internet have gotten so involved in something that it hinders the workings of this country’s most valuable tool – the Justice System.

One hundred years ago, we would have waited for the verdict of trials in the newspaper and on the radio. We would have put all our trust into those who knew all the facts inside the four closed walls of the courthouse. Americans knew that nobody had all the information but those that were sitting in those eight jury seats and that was good enough for them. Those that were present to watch the trial and passed word on by mouth were taken with a grain of salt by those not physically present at the trial. America knew that no matter what verdict was given, whether or not their own misinformed bias thought otherwise, that justice was done because this is the way that our country, in my opinion the greatest in the world, saw fit to operate.

What happens now? Media has sped up so quickly and the Justice System, if anything, has gotten more convoluted and slower. This creates a messy situation because even before first appearance, the public has already made their conclusion of what the verdict should be of a trial that is years away from taking place. They have based their opinion upon the one grainy, shaky, cellphone video that was taken by a passerby who sort-of caught five seconds of “incriminating” footage. Suddenly, the whole world is outraged by a tiny video clip which shows only one side and only a fraction of everything that actually happened there at the scene.

The court system should be immune to the public’s opinion. It should not matter if the whole population of America was standing outside the courtroom’s door screaming, “Not guilty!” The courtroom is an island. It must be this way to be able to deal justice as efficiently as possible. It does not matter what the public thinks. Because if it did, then why have the courtroom system at all? Why not just have a big online forum where all the social media people go to watch cell phone videos of people beating the snot out of somebody else and then at the end of the video hitting a button that says guilty or not guilty.

That’s almost what has happened here in America. Social media has turned the Justice System into a game show. Everyone places their vote into the big show then are outraged at the outcome and the other side. This all based upon the extremely limited and opinion-saturated exposure of the case by the media of their morning news show they are half paying attention to while drinking a cup of coffee. It’s ridiculous. How can people have the gall to believe that their opinion actually means something in the legality of the circumstances. You have to pretty ballsy to think that even though you weren’t in the courtroom, weren’t at the scene of the crime, aren’t a professional in law enforcement or an attorney, and don’t even know the defendant’s last name that you should get a say because you watch CNN or Fox or whatever you do to get your information.

Then these same people take to the streets protesting, dumbfounded that their cries weren’t heard or all their handmade signs they strived for hours making with glue and glitter didn’t get seen during the trial. What these people don’t understand is that justice is not something like a Congressional Bill or decision made by the influence of the people. No amount of phone calls to the judges or catchy slogans chanted outside the courthouse can (or shouldn’t) do anything to affect the outcome of the verdict. Justice is blind and will not tolerate opinion.

If you were on the losing side of the case a hundred years ago, you walked away shamed because you knew that someone you loved had done something wrong because that is what the jury had found without a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t matter what you think. Eight people had unanimously agreed that your son, daughter, wife, husband, etc., was guilty. Now, riots take place, people raid businesses, harass police and terrorize the city because a full jury who have received ALL the facts MUST be wrong. There is no way that I, who tweeted about this person’s innocence every day, could possibly be mistaken.

Advertisements

Gay Marriage

I am a Christian. And I am indifferent to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court to release the ban on homosexual marriage. Let me tell you why.

But before I do let me say that my personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong. This creates, for many people who believe the same way I do, somewhat of a pickle. How could we possibly support something that we disagree with? By not supporting it! Sort of.

Just because you agree with the ruling does not mean you have to like homosexuality. The ruling that was made was not promoting homosexuals, it was simply allowing the freedom for those that were already gay to do as they wish.

Here is why I believe it to be a good thing. It is because if we (America) were able to previously ban a group of people based upon their choice of sexuality from being free in their lifestyle, what is to stop them from taking away the rights of Christians and other groups from living the way they choose?

I realize that this government and country already seems very one sided against Christianity, but it certainly didn’t help that until a couple days ago, Christians had “one-upped” the homosexual community by keeping this ruling postponed for so long. Now that they have their long awaited rights, the homosexual community can no longer hold over the conservative party’s head that they are playing favorites.

All that aside, this country was founded on religious liberty and freedom in the way one lives. No matter how deplorable that may seem to you, or how much it twists your insides, they have the freedom to do that. Yes. It’s America. The same country that allows you to have 75 automatic weapons in your gigantic gun locker and a 900 horsepower supercar in your driveway also has to allow gay marriage. The same country that allows Christians to meet together and Muslims to pray and Hindus to worship without ANY persecution from its government has to allow gay marriage. It’s fair.

And to those who are hurt because they claim that this country is for Christianity and founded on it, you’re wrong. This country was founded on religious freedom by people who happened to be Christians by majority. And some of them very sorry ones at that.

What makes a country a Godly country is not the rules of the legislature or Capitol. It’s the people that make this country that God wants. God could care less about the rules if only the people would follow Him.

Why are we trying to stonewall people’s lifestyles through government when the real way to change a country is by changing the people themselves. So instead of ticking people off by trying to maintain laws against a group who you don’t like, why don’t you try changing their hearts. And if that doesn’t work, then take comfort in the fact that they have to live with you owning seven different types of semi-automatic rifles and 50,000 rounds of ammunition. Which is totally awesome.

Two Wheels with Bow Ties

I love motorcycling. It has become one of my greatest passions of late and although I am very much a newcomer to the game, can see myself growing into a veteran as time rolls on. There’s something that connects one to the road and surroundings in general when riding on two wheels. There’s no A-frame and roof to get in your way of the fantastic view, the wind keeps one cool but on the hottest of days and while cars keep on getting quieter, motorcycles make no apologies for their noise as they belch their scalding exhaust into the atmosphere as cries of victory. The road is inches below one’s feet (or knees depending on your riding style) and you fly across the landscape like a hovering banshee devouring the tarmac. In my own opinion, it’s the best, most thrilling way to travel.

Now before one goes and groups me with the guys that fly by and nearly knocks off your rear views on the interstate, let me say that dangerous motorcycle driving really irks me. It puts a bad face on the rest of us, and it’s irresponsible. There are race tracks for that kind of driving. Hm… race tracks…

Ok, I’m now on the racetrack. And I’m sitting on the best of the best, the hyper bikes that if they were human, would be crouched on the starting line of the 100 yard dash of the Oylmpic games. Squirrels on caffeine, these bikes are, ready to wheelie you off the back with a tiny twitch of your throttle hand. So which one’s the fastest? All of them. Yup. Well maybe.

superbike

You see, motorcycles get to quick faster than cars do and they have for a long time. So about fifteen years ago when bikes had begun to hit critical mass and the top speed was rocketing ever higher, people began to get concerned. What happens when a very responsible, financially-blessed, newly licensed teenager has a rare sudden lapse of judgement and attempts to max out his new bike that the dealership he just drove away from boasted its 215 mph top speed? Well… dental records and fingerprints come into play for identification reasons… The motorcycle companies realized this. And before several countries could enforce any sort of ridiculous limitation that severely impaired motorcycle potential, many of the motorcycle producers made one that they thought was reasonable for themselves first. 186 mph. Take that, you silly political road enforcers. We can be civilized too! Any proper person knows 186 mph is a modest and wholly decent speed to jog down to the market. I daresay, I don’t even think my monocle would fall off at that speed.

monocle

It worked. Beginning in 2000, there was an officially unofficial gentlemen’s agreement among many companies. One wouldn’t want to put any REAL restrictions on the top speed because then you couldn’t, you know, “accidentally” break them. It all went well for a while, and some companies still hold true to that agreement today. Most others do too… sort of…

MV Agusta later decided that top speed limiting was for slow people and blatantly announced their production bikes with higher top speeds, others take a more subtle approach. Ducati’s current hyper bike’s speedometer goes dark when the bike passes 186 mph, turning a blind eye, or just washing its hands of the rider. Either way, it looks like the deal may be on shaky ground. Kawasaki just came out with a 300 horsepower racing bike, which will soon be getting its road-legal cousin likely to have over 220 horsepower. For those of you who don’t know these implications, it means that 186 mph would be a sad waste of potential. And if one company does it… well… this may be a challenge that even propriety cannot stop.

Death by Internet

Human Detected.

Human Detected.

I read an interesting article recently about the dangers of the internet. Not the internet doing the dangerous work, but people mis-using the mysterious cyber-material for fiendish acts. With the world becoming more and more internet connected, everything from your oven to your couch is now connected via wifi or bluetooth or some other connection to the internet. And when there is convenience, which it no doubt is very convenient to control your blender with your smartphone from another state, there are weaknesses. And not practical weaknesses either, such as forgetting to put the lid on the blender will ruin your day, but someone hacking into your smartphone or wifi and using that to open your garage while you are gone will do more damage than smoothie all over one’s ceiling. We buy these “convenient” technological wonders because they are cool and inventive. We like the idea of being able to talk to our thermostat and unlock our front door using our phone. In many cases, they serve a legitimate purpose, but they are also just as “convenient” to those who are smart enough to hack into them and use them for their own mischievous doings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/first-online-murder-will-happen-by-end-of-year-warns-us-firm-9774955.html

The scary part is, when people actually NEED these things to survive. People with medical issues who have pacemakers, and insulin pumps have already proven to be at risk by someone with an evil agenda. The technology to do so is not insanely expensive either, however the know-how and ability to do so may still be in the minds of the more techno-savvy. One does not have to use much imagination though to think of how quickly that ability would become more commonplace as the gadgets get better and people get smarter. Freaky stuff.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/12/06/yes-you-can-hack-a-pacemaker-and-other-medical-devices-too/

If one thinks about it, we’ve pioneered all this computer and technology stuff very quickly over the past century. In doing so, have become enamored with its different abilities and ways that it helps us live. I say different because I don’t want to say better. There are many things that I believe have changed our way of life for the better, but in other ways I believe that less is more. For example, newer model cars have an option that allow the car to brake without the driver ever pressing the brake petal. This is to help avoid accident that the driver does not see. Mind you, it doesn’t affect cars coming from the sides of the vehicle, no, it stops to help you avoid cars that have stopped directly in front of you. Now I’m no perfect driver, but isn’t that what your eyes are for? If your looking away from traffic in front of you, then you are looking at something else which you should probably not be looking at while driving… your phone, other passengers, your drink that just took a spill because you set it in the cup holder which was half full of change already. This isn’t a problem that technology should come to the rescue for, its a common sense problem. Not only that, what happens if the computer glitches out in your car and decides to lock up your brakes on the interstate, on a bridge, over a volcano, full of lava sharks.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/29/automatic-braking-iihs-crash-avoid/9686419/

When technology begins to replace responsibility, it’s too much. Me? I’m going to stick to my old Ford Ranger with manual drive and roll down windows. Safer that way.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Trial by Fire

I was thinking to myself over breakfast at McDonald’s, (I’m a pretty classy guy) and thought about how far we have come from the people who were original settlers of the very spot I was sitting at. I wondered who first took the steps across the barren ground that McDonald’s table was placed however many hundreds of years ago when it was probably just a path through the palmy and mossy Florida turf. I wondered what their mindset on life was and if they ever could even comprehend the idea of ordering one’s food and then receiving it not three minutes later. It would fascinate them to no end. And here I was sitting inside a fast food restaurant where people got upset if their food took more than ten minutes. Ten minutes. This man would have probably hunted ten hours for his family’s dinner, and sometimes would come back unsuccessful. I’ll tell you what, that would build some character.

Now, I’m a total fan of fast food, restaurants, and getting it quick. It’s called business and technology advancement, two of the things I think are vital to our growth as a country. But here’s where I think one of the problems lie, by forgetting how to live without. I sometimes think that if there were no more restaurants, people would die of hunger. They wouldn’t know how to survive without what they have grown up into. They don’t know any different. It would almost be comical to watch fully grown adults act as infants in a world that has completely taken care of them long into adulthood. I say almost comical because in truth, it’s sad to know that most of America, and the world to some extent, is a bunch of fully-grown babies.

Before I go any further, I would like to say that I am in no way a completely self-sustaining individual who is preparing for the apocalypse and has a greenhouse full of crops and canned food inside a nuclear bunker that would last me for years. However, I do not expect anyone else to take care of myself but me. It is solely my responsibility to take care of my own life, my family’s life, and those who I feel responsible for. Which is why it is such a huge responsibility for one to start a family. Because then, it’s not just your life on the line, it’s your wife’s, husband’s or kid’s too! When did we expect other people, factions, governments, or anything to take care of us? Don’t start a family unless you can afford one. Don’t buy something unless you can take the consequences if it goes sour. This isn’t a game folks, it’s called life, and once people start giving you second chances for your mistakes it always, ALWAYS inflicts consequences on those who don’t deserve them.

You know though, I’m a pretty nice guy. I will give someone chance after chance after chance of messing up. Because I mess up, and I’d want people to do that for me. But here’s the catch, I’d never EXPECT anyone to give me a second chance. I’d like it if they did, but if they don’t, then that’s their choice. And there have been times where I have given an individual the benefit of the doubt multiple times, but when the time came that he/she could have forgiven me, they didn’t. I had to accept those consequences and bite my tongue, because it is their choice to forgive me, not my shoe-in mercy because I had given it to them so many times. This is where most people go wrong.

“I deserve a second chance.” No you don’t, no one deserves a second chance. You messed up and now you have to ACCEPT the consequences.

“But I gave them a second chance first!” Good! I congratulate you! You’re a merciful person! Unless your intent was to build a debt, in which case you had an ulterior motive which is not mercy. But I should remind you that mercy does not keep track of how many times it was given and does NOT expect it in return.

“They’re being a jerk!” Maybe. But where does it say that being a jerk is illegal? People have a right to be a jerk. And they’ll pay the natural consequences for being an unsavory person sooner or later, but for the time being, you just have to live with it, sorry.

“It’s not fair!” Seriously? Welcome to what we like to call “life”. It’s a magical place where different people live, and because different people live there with different personalities and opinions, things don’t always work out equally. I don’t know how many times I was told “life isn’t fair” before the revelation finally dawned on me. Life isn’t fair. And it will continue to not be fair as long as you are alive. My coping method? Shrug it off. Because just as much as things seem like they aren’t going one’s way, they turn in your favor. People just tend to see when things go wrong more than they see them go right because we have “babied”, and expect things to go right all the time. True story.

I believe, that once people began to take care of themselves and stopped relying on other things to take care of them, then people would stop caring about how “fair” life was because their lives would be more in their hands then it would be in the government’s monthly checks. It’s easy to complain about fairness when you and your neighbor are competing for handouts. Things begin to change when you work for an honest dollar and realize that you are getting EXACTLY what you deserve. Let me put it on a scale for those who aren’t really following or have only scanned my blog till now.

NO WORK = NO MONEY

SOME WORK = SOME MONEY

LOTS OF WORK = LOTS OF MONEY

NO SAVING + BIG SPENDING = NO MONEY

SOME SAVING +SOME SPENDING = SOME MONEY

LOTS OF SAVING  + NO SPENDING = LOTS OF MONEY

Obviously, there are those who don’t fall into those categories, like those with large families who lost their job. But it still comes down to the basic principles:

1. Don’t have a family you can’t afford.

2. Be kind, be gracious, and accept gifts from those who wish to help, but don’t expect them.

3. Simply know that life can be risky, and nothing is certain, so prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Try to take everything good out of a bad situation, accept responsibility, and plow on to get out of the state that you are in.

I’m not one to sugar coat things. This is a hard, gritty life sometimes. Many times, however, the most extraordinary people rise from quite humble beginnings. I bet if you asked them, they wouldn’t change anything, because they know it’s through trial that makes them who they are. We can try to avoid the fires all we like, but sometimes they are going to happen anyways. It’s up to you to decide whether you’re coming out refined or burned.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fallout Mindset

It’s my theory that most of the worlds fixable problems come from the lack of personal responsibility and the presence of false entitlement. Those who take what they do not earn, and those who will not accept responsibility for their actions are the people who are pulling those down who do.

Just two mindset errors that are having a massively destructive fallout, and its contagious because it’s easy to fall into the trap. It takes resolve to work for your living and to accept the consequences of wrong decisions. But it’s what we must do.

Those who believe that everyone should help each other and share in each other’s good times and bad are right. But it should not be required or forced. This defeats the purpose of help and forcing the “better off” to share with the “less fortunate” creates bitterness between the demographics. And the resource is not anyone’s to give except for the one who earned it.

People have a right to be selfish, greedy, miserly, and stingy with their belongings without anyone judging them for it because they earned it. It’s no business of anyone else what they do with their resources because it is of no concern of you or me. In fact, to me or anyone else, it does not exist besides the fact that they have it. And it should not worry us how they treat their property.

This is what I am talking about when it comes to false entitlement. Somehow, there are people that believe that because other people have more, and they have less, that they are entitled to a portion of what those people earned because it’s “not fair.” These people believe that those with more are the greedy ones, when in reality, the people who are taking what does not belong to them are even more selfish than those maintaining what they have earned.

The logic here is incredibly simple. But here’s where the irresponsibility kicks in for those who already have a sense of self entitlement. Instead of looking at those with more and thinking, “Alright, I’m going to work really hard so that one day, I’ll be exactly where they are if not further!” They think to themselves, “Man, I really want the lifestyle that guy has, he needs to share with me because it’s not fair that he’s up there and I’m down here. Besides, it would totally be easier than me working my way to the top.”

And so the disease of self-entitlement and irresponsibility is complete and at its full work inside the minds of those who have the potential to be great, but instead wait for someone else to do it for them. It has become so blatant and so obvious to me that it is almost laughable to watch the everyday person rant and fume over injustice that really isn’t injustice at all. In fact, whatever they are receiving now through help that is not willingly given to them is probably more than they should be getting. But they still complain and I will tell you why. It’s because you can never give those who are greedy enough.

Those with self-entitlement and irresponsibility will always be unhappy with the amount they are freely given because it’s not the amount that is the problem, it’s the mindset.

Tagged , , , , ,

Gun Control

.45 auto, 12 gauge slug, 7.62x54r, 12 gauge buckshot

.45 auto, 12 gauge buckshot and slug, 7.62x54r

Ok, first of all, those who know me realize that I am probably a tad bit biased when it comes to this subject but I have been meaning to talk about this for a while and haven’t gotten a chance to. So let’s just put right out on the table.

What do YOU think about guns, and how do YOU think they should be handled? And yes, if you are reading this, YOU means You. Participation isn’t required, but if you feel strongly enough about this particular subject, then feel free to comment below. If not, then you’re more than welcome to read my stance, and then see if you have an opinion afterwards. If you don’t have an opinion at all, then you are a robot. In which case I expect a full paragraph of binary code to prove it. Moving on!

With the current way things are going up the political chain, firearms owners seem to be running more and more out of luck. Federal and State laws are being put into place to crack down on the amount of rounds one can buy in a magazine (the storage for bullets that is inserted into a gun’s firing chamber). So high-capacity magazines seem to be going down the tubes should this go the way many politicians and gun-control advocates want.

Some states have had stringent gun laws for a while. Illinois, New York, California, and D.C. are some of the more strict places that have already limited many firearm liberties allowed to lawful gun owners in other parts of the U.S. But the crackdown on “military style rifles” and other firearm-related accessories is causing many gun owners to cry foul.

Here’s what I think. Very strongly, in fact.

1. The making of more rules and bans on certain styles, types, and capacities of firearms will only be taking the protection away from law abiding citizens, and giving the ones who could care less about the law one less thing to worry about when breaking the law.

2. It does not matter how dangerous firearms may be, the right to own one remains. Cars are dangerous and kill more people than guns every year by far. As do baseball bats. But we don’t hear any sort of outcry against bats or cars. We have to put it in perspective.

3. The right to own firearms is in the second amendment. I’ve heard the argument that the founding fathers could not predict machine guns or high-powered, semi-automatic rifles. But at the time, they were allowing people to own exactly what their army had. Which was just as threatening to them as it is now. They did not limit the population to 22″ barreled muskets, or censor pistols with stocks. A gun is a gun. Even to the founding fathers it was very simple.

4. Sacrificing freedom for security always has been, and always will be a bad idea. A very bad idea. For those of you who are advocates of gun control, question your motives. Are you wanting to restrict the owning of firearms because you are frightened of the fact that the people around you may own a weapon? Or do you think that people have absolutely no right to owning any sort of firearms whatsoever. And if indeed, then what is your reasoning for that thought process? I have, (although it was hard) pictured myself on the other side of my philosophy and could not find any reason as to why people should not have access to firearms other than the fact that many people fear them. Truth is, fear is not a legitimate factor to take away freedoms from those in this country. A misguided fear at that. Let’s delve more into this subject, shall we?

Let’s say guns were no longer allowed to be carried. Let’s say that they were completely banned other than the extremely regulated use at a government run facility where ammo was limited and range time shortened. The people who would suffer would be the law abiding citizens who keep firearms on their person to protect themselves from threats that cannot be stopped otherwise. The criminals, who care nothing for the law, would run rampant as much of the healthy respect from being able to carry a weapon is now gone. They now have control over anybody who now does not have proper means of defending themselves. Taking away that critical tool to defend ourselves would give us no advantage over the criminals. In fact, we would be far worse off. The criminals who do not care what the laws says would carry guns and use them to their advantage every chance they get. Removing guns from the hands of law abiding people is not making the country safer, it’s making it more dangerous.

5. A tighter gun control system is attempting to remedy the symptom, not the disease. The efforts that are put into controlling firearms is misguided in that, the problem does not lie with the weapon, it lies with the person wielding it. Any tool put into the hands of a volatile person becomes dangerous. Whether that be a shovel, bat, knife, car, anything. Someone who has intent on killing will kill with anything he or she is given. There needs to be a much larger movement to aid those who are troubled. Not focus so much effort on removing ONE of the many things that people could possibly use to harm others.

6. The placement of “gun free zones” is self-destructive. It is a warning for law abiding citizens that this is an area for which they will punished for keeping a weapon on them to protect themselves, and an invitation for those who have ill-intent. Because they can be assured there will be nobody inside the area to hinder them.

I’ve been staying up to date the best I could over the past month or two since this has really hit the news and become a major issue. I had my stance before, but listening to both sides of the argument over these couple of months I think I’ve seen the motivation behind the control. It is fear. Those who are against guns, for whatever reason they have, are scared. Perhaps for justified reasons, and maybe not. It’s not my job or my business to tell people what to be afraid about. People can fear whatever they like. But it’s when their fear becomes so great, that they will attempt to change and alter my rights and way of life because they are so afraid, that crosses the line. I have fears of my own, but I will not tell someone they cannot participate in their rights because I am fearful. That’s simply not right.

One can already see it in some of the laws that are in place already. For example, most states do not allow the carrying of a weapon if it is not concealed. This is because people are uncomfortable seeing those with weapons on their person. It scares them. And they would rather not see it at all, then have to deal with their own fear of that person carrying a weapon. So here we have millions of people around the United States, legally carrying guns under their clothes because that’s what most people want. Out of sight, out of mind. The philosophy is so backwards, it makes one scratch their head and wonder how people made it this way. I don’t know about you, but if someone has a weapon on them, even if they are perfectly legal and peaceful, I would much rather see it and recognize it, then be oblivious to the things around me. It only makes sense. But it seems that we have adopted the saying “ignorance is bliss”, and have contented ourselves with forcing others to stuff their weapons under their clothes. Because if we don’t see it, then it’s not there. Foolish ostrich people.

I have my own views, yes. I understand that people may not enjoy firearms, hunting, or choose to protect themselves in that form. But to alter other’s rights because of fear is a no-no, and the start of a slippery slope that will be hard to recover from. Magazine bans, and halting the manufacturing of firearms that people do not think others “need” follows suite. Freedoms are freedoms, and when politicians begin to micromanage and control smaller parts of our rights, it becomes a dictatorship. A country that is run out of fear will fail, a country run out of respect will build upon itself. Freedoms can be dangerous sometimes, it’s the nature of the word. But I would not sacrifice even a bit of it for false security.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Law and Order

Responsibility rolls over to the way people are detained as well. I don’t believe that we should be paying for other people’s crimes, mistakes, or faults. The amount of criminally detained people inside America is enormous. The bigger the number of people, the larger the bill that we have to pay to support them while they wait out their sentences.

I believe that the number of detained in this country is directly related to the severity of the consequences. If one does not expect to receive a harsh consequence, then one will continue to act in their negative ways and keep returning to the jail cell.

We end up paying more for their mistakes then they do as far as dollar figures go. If people get themselves into prison/jail, then they can work to get themselves out.

They would have to earn the dollar amount of their belongings/food/accomodations by doing work that will pay for their sentence. What this work would consist of is up to the court or the county to decide what needs to be done that will benefit the community. But instead of the population paying for their deeds by providing them a cell, food, blankets, and care, they would paying for it themselves. If they fid not work, the alternative is very simple, they do not get what they work for. Which of course would be food, clothes, bed, blankets, or whatever else they needed or wished to have. The option would also be there for them to have a “bank” of sorts that allowed them to work extra shifts to have a “tab” so-to-speak in case they got sick or wanted to “take the day off.”

Just because one does something wrong does not mean they do not have to work like all the rest of people outside. Some might actually argue that this would be less of a punishment due to the fact that many inmates would rather work outside than sit in a cell all day. (Not that the work would necessarily mean working outside.) However, this is about taking the responsibility of their actions off the public.

This would, in turn, relieve the amount of detained due to the fact that they have to work while detained for their own survival and comfort rather than what is currently in place. It would also take the weight of the incarcerated off the general population’s taxes.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Cold Thinking

A big topic of debate in the recent election is health care and its stipulations. Now I am not completely knowledgeable about all these things. But I do have a base knowledge about how it works and that’s enough for me to form a little bit of an opinion on the subject, which is this.

Health care should not be required. It’s really not that difficult to understand or comprehend. People rave over “free” healthcare. But what they do not realize is that the healthcare really isn’t “free.” It’s being paid for by everyone else in the country who are taxable. Doctors don’t work for free, and neither would you if you went to school for twelve years to become one. Believe it or not, most doctors are not in the profession to “help” people. Most of them became doctors because its a respectable career that pays darn good money and simply help people because its how they make their money. So when someone walks into a hospital with no name, insurance, or social security number because their arm is missing. It’s us taxpayers who get to replace that missing arm. How nice of us.

With the government’s current way of going about things right now, they’ll have us all paying for each other’s injuries, chemo, and organ transplants in no time. Even if you’ve never been to the hospital a day in your life, you’ll get taxed just the same as the dude down the street who isn’t the least bit concerned of taking care of himself. Why? Because he knows you’re paying for it every time he gets more stitches, and there’s nothing you can do about it. So what does this mean? It creates another hole in the system. Everyone is paying for each other and the personal level of responsibility goes down as people know that if they do something stupid, it will be covered by good ol’ uncle Sam. I could imagine that the people who take care of themselves are probably the ones who will be doing all the paying anyways as “free” pills, meds, and treatments go to the ones who abuse the system for their own benefit. I for one do not want to be the one paying for other people’s medications. Especially with some of the ways that people receive their “doses.”

One might argue that they would be able to control this health care system by tight tolerances and restrictions. But here’s the thing, it’s still wrong. The fact that we are paying for other people’s health care is ridiculous. I am responsible for myself and do not wish to have the health problems of my neighbors.

I’m sorry if this comes across a little rough but it’s true. People die, people get sick, people get hurt. It’s a fact of life. If one cannot pay for their medications, or their treatments in whatever way they have saved or insured themselves to do so, then they may be refused care. Health is not a right, it’s a business. Since the beginning of time people have been paying doctors and hospitals out of pocket to help them in their time of need. One doesn’t expect to get their car fixed for free when it’s not working properly. So why on earth would someone expect anybody but themselves to pay for their body when it’s not working right? I’m certainly not wanting to pay for their health. I’ve kept myself healthy and insured so I’m reaping what I’ve sown. I’m not going to help pay for somebody’s heart transplant because they’ve binged on soda and McDonald’s their whole life. Sorry.

It goes down to the responsibility factor. You reap what you sow. You only get ONE chance at this whole life thing. And if you make wrong choices, then you’re going to have consequences. What we have done is wagged our finger at those who make wrong choices. Instead of letting them take the blame for what they have done, we have spread the punishment out over the population for which most of us do not want or deserve.

The argument here is that this would be cold. That refusing people care because they do not have the money to pay for it is unethical. But stealing from others to give to those who have not prepared or simply taking from people who do not wish to give is just as unethical. There would be measures that people could take to give money into banks that give to those who need the money for health care. But if people did not wish to give, then that would be completely within their right to do so.

Health should be dealt with like anything else. Privatized health insurance is the way to go unless you want to pay out of your pocket. But these should be the only ways of paying for one’s health.

Prices would eventually go down because doctors can charge just about as much a they want to now because of the government’s insurance which is funded by us. So health companies pretty much have a blank check when charging. However, if people did not have the government to depend on, then the doctors would have to lower prices to remain competitive and in business.

The economics of it aside, paying for other people’s health care is wrong. It should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

What is Right Regardless

Responsibility. Its what is missing from the current way of thinking in society today. No one is willing to accept the hardships of life and the risks that are so numerous inside existence. People have become more impatient and want everything now and none of the consequences that come with a “second chance attitude.” The same is said for the people in power who make the rules and must be accepted by the population who vote them into such power. They promise more of what the people want and in turn the masses are persuaded by the lure of free stuff and more for them with less consequences.

But they don’t understand that for every gift there must be something taken. Nothing comes for “free.” And to give means also to take. But nobody cares or thinks about that it where its coming from. And if they do think about it, they do not care because they are selfish and easily justify their selfishness with their “needs.”

This does not create a healthy enviroment for anybody. The less wealthy will learn to do nothing but depend on the more wealthy and become lazy and lackadaisical. And the more wealthy will continue to cut corners and evade the harsh taxing as much as possible because they do not agree with the way they see their money being treated or taken from them.

I have a motto that I like to stick to and that is this. It is that the world can sometimes be a very harsh and unforgiving place. It is the nature of a sinful world to be imperfect. But simply because life can seem unforgiving, it does not make it our responsibility to make it more unfair and unjust to cater to those which we may label as “less fortunate.” The very fact that we see people with less possessions and financial gain as “less fortunate” and “missing out” means that we have faded into a materialistic mindset and are missing the point completely. I recently visited a third world country where the people there are many times happier than even the most wealthy Americans. So the answer in making a more “happy, courteous, and perhaps even “civilized”” country does not lie in the robin hood method if stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

The governments hand should be out of our pocketbooks completely. Meaning the economy. As in, the government works as a completely separate faction. If two major automakers are going bankrupt, let them go bankrupt. The government should not have the authority or even the money to bail out ANYBODY. Business is a risk, and if you win that risk, good! But if you lose, such is life. Where did we ever get the idea that we can get away Scott free from the mistakes and choices that we make. And when did we ever get the idea that it would be from the government? That’s ridiculous.

I will say this. A government’s responsibility is to rule, protect, and secure. Nothing else. Protection and order are its only function. Not economics. Not morals. Nothing else.

It is up to it’s people to make a living for themselves. Its up to us to help each other in their time of need. And its up to the church to inform people of the Truth and God’s love so that people are not relying on the government to draw the line between morality and sin. Why have we Christians given the authority of morality to the government when we should be on the front lines changing people’s hearts. Not their laws. People should not be not wanting to do drugs, and have gay marriages because the law forbids them, but because they do not wish to because God has saved them. And that is OUR responsibility. We have failed.

A country should function as an enormous community. Because that is what we are at a massive level. If people really do believe that everyone should pitch in and give a portion of their paycheck go help those in need then they can take money from their own paycheck and give to a charity. But to believe that EVERYONE must and enforce taxes and laws upon people’s hard earned money is wrong and downright stealing. Your views on how the world should run are not my own and do not affect my paycheck. I have the right to stuff all my money I ever receive in a mattress and not share a cent to the poor for the rest of my life should I choose. Would that make me a jerk? Maybe, (but it IS my money). But I have the right to be a jerk. Sorry folks, just the way it is. Obviously this is all hypothetical and I would help those in need. But think about this. I honestly believe that if people were not forced to give, that they would give MORE. Everyone is so impossibly stingy with their money because they are already forced to give. And even worse that they have no idea where its going. If taxes were taken and charities took their place, we would see a difference. Absolutely.

People must take responsibility for their lives and their actions. The lack of it will destroy us.

Tagged , , , , , , ,