Interesting statistics

The ability to drive is a privilege. In 2014 there were about 260 million passenger vehicles on the road in the US, and 9,967 deaths due to alcohol-impaired traffic accidents. That’s a ratio of alcohol-impaired deaths involving automobiles to the number of automobiles on the road amounting to ~ 0.00004. This means that approximately 1 in 25,000 cars is involved in an alcohol-related death. The intoxicated drivers are blamed for these crimes, not the automobiles. There are no calls to restrict access to or confiscate autos.

The ability to bear arms is a constitutional right. In 2014 there were about 300 million guns in the US, and 8124 homicides involving firearms. That’s a ratio of gun homicides to number of guns amounting to approximately 0.00003. This means that approximately 1 in 33,333 firearms is involved in a shooting-related death. The guns are blamed for these crimes, rather than the criminals who use them. Calls for new laws restricting access to firearms or their outright confiscation abound.

Go figure.

 

Off-duty(?) cops walk off job

It has been reported that off-duty Minneapolis police officers walked off their job as security for a Minnesota Lynx basketball game as a result of the free speech activities of some of the ball players. I see a real problem with their actions; maybe it’s time we rethink the ability of officers to exercise their police powers in such “off-duty” jobs. Continue reading “Off-duty(?) cops walk off job”

It’s just another tax, people…

This time, it’s a sugary beverage tax.

Whenever a government proposes a tax that will punish an unpopular subset of the population while claiming to benefit a more popular cause, it’s just a ruse. The goal is a tax, nothing more. And while it may appear that the tax will go towards a good cause that needs additional funding, there is usually nothing to prevent the government from reducing existing funding by an amount equal to the new tax. This has the effect of putting the tax revenue into the general fund, leaving the government free to spend it on whatever they like – including things for which you would not have approved a new tax. Beginning to see how this scam works?

And next time, it might be you who is the unpopular subset of the population being taxed.

Well, at least this makes sense.

Ex-Presidents usually become wealthy as a result of speaking engagements, books, etc., yet we still continue to pay them a pension as well as expenses (staff, travel, office materials). Seems silly when they make so much money; the Clintons, for instance, have made more than $30 million dollars between January 2014 and May 2015. The Bush family has done quite well, too.

So, Congress has comes out with a bill to limit the taxpayer’s share of these expenses, based on earnings by the ex-President.

It’s about time. Let’s see if Obama signs it.

The answer: More gun control, of course.

It is sad that political activists have already begun to call for more gun control in the wake of the assassination of five Dallas police officers last night. But before we jump to the conclusion that taking guns from law-abiding citizens would have prevented this carnage, let’s take a look at how this event was different from others  (or from what could have happened), and how driven killers such as this one will always find a way no matter the restrictions placed on law-abiding citizens. Continue reading “The answer: More gun control, of course.”

The middle class may be shrinking….

… but it seems that more people are moving up rather than down.

From a NPR article today:

Nonetheless, the overall trend is upward: The middle class may be shrinking, but two-thirds of those who leave have moved up, while one-third have dropped to a lower income group.

“There is actually more progress than regression,” says Rakesh Kochhar, who studies the middle class and is associate director of research at the Pew Research Center.

So when the government says that they want to restore the middle class, it’s actually a bad thing…

“Make my day”

From CNN:

“Make my day. Make my day.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi replied, daring Republicans to call more attention to the protest, with a comment reminiscent of Clint Eastwood’s famous “Dirty Harry” character.

Do you think “Dirty Pelosi” realizes that she’s using what arguably could be considered a pro-gun call to arms (pun intended) in her quest to eliminate guns? And doesn’t “Dirty Pelosi” sounds like a cheap drink you find at a beach-side party bar? Two parts rum, one part grain alcohol, and 3 parts Rohypnol. Oh, well; I expect that accounts for the dysfunction we find permeating Congress – I’ll bet this is a popular drink with the D.C. crowd.

Democrats block immigration vote

Does this ring a bell? I think it was just last week that Republicans were blamed for blocking a gun control vote. Seems it goes both ways…

In any event, the Democrats blocked two Republican bills that would have: increased penalties for illegal aliens that repeatedly re-enter the country AND have an aggravated felony conviction; and revoked federal grants for sanctuary cities that do not honor federal requests for detaining illegal aliens.

An except from a second article on the topic quotes Democratic minority leader Harry Reid as saying, “These bills follow Trump’s lead in demonizing, criminalizing immigrant, Latino families.”

I disagree, Harry; they seem to be demonizing violent felons who also repeatedly violate our immigration laws. Families aren’t even mentioned, let alone Latinos. I just don’t see the harm in locking up violent felons who are here illegally, and I’ll bet if you ask the law-abiding, honest, hard-working immigrant families upon which they frequently prey that you might find they’re fine with it, too.

The U.S. does need some immigration reform, Harry; however, you’re going to have a hard time getting that reform while stories of illegal aliens with violent felony records killing innocent people abound. It would go a long way in winning the support of the people for immigration reform if we knew that the violent felons could be removed – from our country and consideration – without waiting for them to kill someone.