Thursday, January 27, 2011
Rick Scott Comic - Fair Districts
In case you didn't hear about it, Rick Scott secretly withdrew Florida’s federal preclearance application for Fair Districts despite the overwhelming support of 63% at the polls.
Monday, January 17, 2011
"Leaving The Sheep Unguarded"
Leaving the Sheep Unguarded, dated November 24, 2010, is an editorial by Alan Brooks published under The Free Press by FSU's Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a branch of the SGA. Brooks insists that students should be able to carry guns on a college campus, that having gun-free zones do not stop firearms from being brought to schools and that officials who are trained to carry guns are not trustworthy. In reference to the Virginia Tech shooting he says,
Brooks inflates his argument by saying that the Odighizuwa shooting in Virginia 5 years earlier than Virginia Tech was a prime example of why guns should be on campuses. Two students brought their firearms to counter the campus shooter who then surrendered after killing three people. What Brooks does not address is that the case of the Odighizuwa take-down was a rare tale of success. A gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, criminal assault or homicide, or unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263)
Brooks criticizes that we shouldn't attain some false sense of security, adding that students and faculty with guns will save lives "not the police and certainly not a sign announcing that all the potential victims are guaranteed to be unarmed because the school is 'Gun Free'" he says. The fact is, Gun Free Zones don't guarantee anything; The purpose of Gun Free Zones are to escalate punishments in the instances where a weapon is found or used in that specific perimeter. Gun Free Zones couldn't be enforced because that wouldn't be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Gun control though, unlike gun-free zones, is constitutional within the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Whether or not you can agree or convince yourself otherwise, educational studies deem poorly limited firearm access to be a major contributing factor to crime, suicide and deaths.
If officials who are trained aren't trustworthy then how can we trust people who have little to no training in law enforcement? Joe Zamudio carried a concelaed weapon while he was out to buy cigarettes the afternoon when Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords. He had his hand on the trigger, changed his mind and put it away to tackle who he thought was the shooter. Zamudio could have shot the wrong person, commenting that the man who he thought to be Loughner was, "Very lucky." Imagine on a college campus that a student is firing back at another and for a third student, not knowing which one is the campus shooter, to then make a fatal assumption?
Should we limit the mentally ill from purchasing firearms? Jared Lee Loughner was not allowed to join the military and was suspended from school for mental health issues prior to the Arizona shooting. Hui Cho from the Virginia Tech incident was was detained temporarily at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia where Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
Just a reminder for when someone says gun violence needs to be lessened with... more gun violence.
Sources:
Guncite.com
The Slate
The Brady Campaign
Response to: Rebellious Pagan Knight
"A well armed society is a polite society."
Apparently not; we have more gun availability and more gun-related deaths per capita than any other high-income populous countries -source
"If public colleges can limit my constitutional Rights to bear arms, which other rights may they limit?"
Private institutions may be able to limit rights but not public schools. What you are saying is called a slippery slope logical fallacy. Currently gun-free zones are limited to enforcement because they conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Also, I addressed this in the article, which you clearly have not read in its entirety.
You also forget why Benjamin Franklin intentionally used specific words like "temporary" and "little" in his language. Do you know what inspired Benjamin Franklin's quote?
Response to Anonymous:
"Uh... wouldn't 100% of gun-related homicides/suicides not occur if no guns were present?"
No, because some still have the endeavor to act (which you actually make a point about in the same comment later). However, that doesn't equate to having more guns available to students when evidence proves that more access to firearms amount to more deaths and that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them to accomplish these acts of violence.
If the students who were carrying weapons to counter the Odighizuwa shooter had opened fire there would have been more injuries or deaths. The statistics are related: A gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, criminal assault or homicide, or unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263)
"Cho could just have easily just locked the doors and set the place on fire with a can of gas."
It's clear that Cho's intention was to use firearms - a student noticed how compelled he was by the columbine shooting. In no case should those who are diagnosed as mentally unstable have any access to firearms yet Cho was able to purchase a gun. If i had to choose though between a fire in a large college building with multiple exits or an angry gunman I would go with fire.
"'Gun free' zones do nothing but give these whack-jobs a place where they know law-abiding citizens will be unable to protect themselves."
It's clear you did not read the article, either -
"Gun Free Zones don't guarantee anything; The purpose of Gun Free Zones are to escalate punishments in the instances where a weapon is found or used in that specific perimeter. Gun Free Zones couldn't be enforced because that wouldn't be constitutional under the Commerce Clause."
Best Reader Response:
"Here in reality, a phrase that says "well-regulated" that appears in a government document (i.e., the Constitution) obviously implies government regulation. Second, regulating the militia, by definition, would include regulating its weapons. Third, even the conservatives on the Supreme Court now ruled that the Second Amendment allows for gun control. Fourth, if the Second Amendment only allows for the government to regulate the militia, then that interpretation, by definition, excludes an individual right to bear arms.
There is nothing, even in a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment, that prohibits gun control. The word "infringe" doesn't mean "any regulation." The Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to bear arms, but nothing in that ruling or the Second Amendment says that you can't regulate that right to bear arms. It is completely legitimate, and in line with what the founders argued, to limit who can get a gun (murderers for example), what type of arms they can bear (no personal ownership of nuclear weapons) and where they can bear them (can't take them to the White House). No sane person could dispute this. The logic of what you are saying is that the government has no right to deny terrorists the right to own weapons. That's ludicrous by any measure.
The Declaration is not law and it has no legal authority. The Constitution, passed in 1788, has sole legal authority in the U.S. It allows for laws to be created under its authority, passed by Congress and the state and local governments, and it allows for judicial interpretation of its language and intent, as exercised solely by federal courts. There is no legal right under the Constitution to use violence to overthrow the U.S. government. This was completely settled as an issue during the Civil War. Advocating the use of weapons against democratically-elected government officials because you don't like them is terrorism, treason and sedition. It's also 100% un-American by every definition of America. The quote you cite from the Declaration does not suggest that violence is an acceptable way to deal with a government you don't like, it suggests that you use the ballot and elections to make those changes. The only time violence against government is ever legitimate is when that government uses illegitimate violence against its citizens. There are no examples of that happening in the present and to suggest otherwise is insanity."
"If only one student or faculty member had been carrying a gun that day, it is possible that many lives could have been saved."Or that more lives could have been lost; studies point out that where there are more parties involved with gun access, there are more gun deaths. U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had guns not been present. No, guns don't literally kill people - but they undoubtedly help.
Brooks inflates his argument by saying that the Odighizuwa shooting in Virginia 5 years earlier than Virginia Tech was a prime example of why guns should be on campuses. Two students brought their firearms to counter the campus shooter who then surrendered after killing three people. What Brooks does not address is that the case of the Odighizuwa take-down was a rare tale of success. A gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, criminal assault or homicide, or unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263)
 |
| Books Not Berettas |
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Whether or not you can agree or convince yourself otherwise, educational studies deem poorly limited firearm access to be a major contributing factor to crime, suicide and deaths.
If officials who are trained aren't trustworthy then how can we trust people who have little to no training in law enforcement? Joe Zamudio carried a concelaed weapon while he was out to buy cigarettes the afternoon when Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords. He had his hand on the trigger, changed his mind and put it away to tackle who he thought was the shooter. Zamudio could have shot the wrong person, commenting that the man who he thought to be Loughner was, "Very lucky." Imagine on a college campus that a student is firing back at another and for a third student, not knowing which one is the campus shooter, to then make a fatal assumption?
Should we limit the mentally ill from purchasing firearms? Jared Lee Loughner was not allowed to join the military and was suspended from school for mental health issues prior to the Arizona shooting. Hui Cho from the Virginia Tech incident was was detained temporarily at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia where Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
Just a reminder for when someone says gun violence needs to be lessened with... more gun violence.
Sources:
Guncite.com
The Slate
The Brady Campaign
Response to: Rebellious Pagan Knight
"A well armed society is a polite society."
Apparently not; we have more gun availability and more gun-related deaths per capita than any other high-income populous countries -source
"If public colleges can limit my constitutional Rights to bear arms, which other rights may they limit?"
Private institutions may be able to limit rights but not public schools. What you are saying is called a slippery slope logical fallacy. Currently gun-free zones are limited to enforcement because they conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Also, I addressed this in the article, which you clearly have not read in its entirety.
You also forget why Benjamin Franklin intentionally used specific words like "temporary" and "little" in his language. Do you know what inspired Benjamin Franklin's quote?
Response to Anonymous:
"Uh... wouldn't 100% of gun-related homicides/suicides not occur if no guns were present?"
No, because some still have the endeavor to act (which you actually make a point about in the same comment later). However, that doesn't equate to having more guns available to students when evidence proves that more access to firearms amount to more deaths and that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them to accomplish these acts of violence.
If the students who were carrying weapons to counter the Odighizuwa shooter had opened fire there would have been more injuries or deaths. The statistics are related: A gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide, criminal assault or homicide, or unintentional shooting death or injury than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263)
"Cho could just have easily just locked the doors and set the place on fire with a can of gas."
It's clear that Cho's intention was to use firearms - a student noticed how compelled he was by the columbine shooting. In no case should those who are diagnosed as mentally unstable have any access to firearms yet Cho was able to purchase a gun. If i had to choose though between a fire in a large college building with multiple exits or an angry gunman I would go with fire.
"'Gun free' zones do nothing but give these whack-jobs a place where they know law-abiding citizens will be unable to protect themselves."
It's clear you did not read the article, either -
"Gun Free Zones don't guarantee anything; The purpose of Gun Free Zones are to escalate punishments in the instances where a weapon is found or used in that specific perimeter. Gun Free Zones couldn't be enforced because that wouldn't be constitutional under the Commerce Clause."
Best Reader Response:
"Here in reality, a phrase that says "well-regulated" that appears in a government document (i.e., the Constitution) obviously implies government regulation. Second, regulating the militia, by definition, would include regulating its weapons. Third, even the conservatives on the Supreme Court now ruled that the Second Amendment allows for gun control. Fourth, if the Second Amendment only allows for the government to regulate the militia, then that interpretation, by definition, excludes an individual right to bear arms.
There is nothing, even in a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment, that prohibits gun control. The word "infringe" doesn't mean "any regulation." The Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to bear arms, but nothing in that ruling or the Second Amendment says that you can't regulate that right to bear arms. It is completely legitimate, and in line with what the founders argued, to limit who can get a gun (murderers for example), what type of arms they can bear (no personal ownership of nuclear weapons) and where they can bear them (can't take them to the White House). No sane person could dispute this. The logic of what you are saying is that the government has no right to deny terrorists the right to own weapons. That's ludicrous by any measure.
The Declaration is not law and it has no legal authority. The Constitution, passed in 1788, has sole legal authority in the U.S. It allows for laws to be created under its authority, passed by Congress and the state and local governments, and it allows for judicial interpretation of its language and intent, as exercised solely by federal courts. There is no legal right under the Constitution to use violence to overthrow the U.S. government. This was completely settled as an issue during the Civil War. Advocating the use of weapons against democratically-elected government officials because you don't like them is terrorism, treason and sedition. It's also 100% un-American by every definition of America. The quote you cite from the Declaration does not suggest that violence is an acceptable way to deal with a government you don't like, it suggests that you use the ballot and elections to make those changes. The only time violence against government is ever legitimate is when that government uses illegitimate violence against its citizens. There are no examples of that happening in the present and to suggest otherwise is insanity."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Mike Haridopolos Watch 1.13.2011
Gov. Scott's tax cut plans collide with Senate President Mike Haridopolos
Haridopolos: Budget cuts more pressing than Rick Scott's tax cuts
Haridopolos Officially Running for Senate
Haridopolos Hails Florida Schools' Top-Five Score in National Survey
Senate prez paying former senator up to $89K as consultant
Haridopolos: Anti-health care reform amendment could be first measure considered by Senate
Florida Senate president: Cuts in education funding are likely
More Here - Florida Leadership Watch 1.11.2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Florida Watch 1.11.2011
- Gov. Rick Scott denies flip-flop on Fla. gambling
- A Closer Look At Rick Scott’s Executive Orders
- Rick Scott appointee's anti-immigration background raising concerns
- Rick Scott’s Non-Discrimination Order Excludes Sexual Orientation, Age, Handicap.
- Analysis: We still don't really know Rick Scott
- FL Gov. Rick Scott Offends Homosexuals
- Teacher and student wish list for Gov. Rick Scott
- Rick Scott Plans To Continue Jeb Bush's Legacy With Voucher Program In Florida
- Jackson Labs pulls state application, wants to work with Scott
- Florida Welcomes Rick Scott As Their New Fraudster King
- Scott plays down gambling expansion
- Gov. Rick Scott hit political turbulence as he tried to carry out a campaign promise to ditch the state's aircraft fleet
- Restoration supporters say they haven't heard much more from the new governor about his Everglades vision
Should we experiment with Education?
Dean Cannon unfairly attacked "five unelected justices of the Florida Supreme Court" whom he said caused "threats to freedom"
"We are ushering in a whole new generation of leadership, who really believe in the principles of Jeb Bush,"
Haridopolos wants constitutional amendments go directly to the ballot without a review
Ag. Commissioner Adam Putnam:Adam Putnam's new communications director former press assistant for Bush-Cheney ’04
Florida's new Ag Commissioner shouldn't sugar coat this reform
Adam Putnam halts state effort to ban chocolate milk and most other high-sugar drinks in Florida schools
Bondi: "the voters rewarded us for our outspoken opposition to ObamaCare."
Bondi , Aronberg Aim to Shut Down 'Pill Mills'
Pam Bondi, said her agency has settled allegations of deceptive marketing practices
Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater:
Taj Mahal Courthouse far worse than a pricey building
Personnel notes: CFO Jeff Atwater names staff, includes Budd Kneip, P.K. Jameson and Alexis Lambert
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
The even more updated Rick Scott Inauguration Donors list (humor)
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, $25,000
(You know this is for Rick Scott, right?)
Liberty Partners, $25,000
(It turns out they don't like liberty very much)
United Automobile Insurance Co., $25,000
(Insuring cars before people since 1922)
FL Optometrists Association*, $25,000
(We don't care if you're blind, unless you mean literally)
The Villages, $25,000
(I knew this was an M.Night Shyamalan movie)
Sun Corn, Inc., $25,000
(Great to know an ingredient that's in everything doesn't want to be bothered by "big government standards")
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, $25,000
(I prefer Dunder Mifflin)
Progress Energy, $25,000
(Doesn't Scott use the word progress as double-speak for "socialism?")
Florida Transportation Builders’ Association, Inc., $25,000
(Now we can build a bridge to nowhere in FL - I can see Cuba from my house!)
21st Century Oncology, LLC, $25,000
(By next year they can call themselves 12th Century Alchemy LLC)
Office Depot, $25,000
(Rick Scott didn't remember that Staples carries the "easy" button)
USAA, $25,000
("Real" Americans say America twice)
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, $15,000
(...Too easy)
Guarantee Insurance Company, $10,000
(I guarantee that we can't guarantee anything)
Keiser University, $10,000
(Keiser is the top 12! ... for online universities)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., $10,000
(Who did Scott appoint for Emergency Management? Bryan Koon, who works for Walmart. Maybe we can union-bust storms for trying to happen simultaneously)
Preferred Medical Plan, $10,000
(You'll prefer us because we tell you to)
Richard Beard, $5,000
(What are you, a lumberjack?)
Hoe Brown, $5,000
(Just like wasting the cash, don't you Hoe? I just couldn't help myself)
ABC Liquors, Inc., $5,000
(If there's one thing Florida will collectively need after Scott is in office, it's whiskey)
More stuff from Leaflet blog
Full list of donors here
Sources:
FPC
Scott Carroll Inaugural
Monday, January 03, 2011
Florida Action Alert - Fight the Racial Profiling Bill
The proposed immigration bill is an Orwellian reality minus the tantalizing dystopian sci-fi setting. A personal example is when I crossed Arizona from Las Vegas; the patrols that stop you look through the windows of your car. If you're white, they leave you alone. If you're anything else, they don't. Go ahead and label having a conscience as "un-American" but I find it a moral imperative to see that doesn't keep happening. Can you bring the ruckus to the upcoming Town Hall meetings?
Tallahassee:
Senate Judiciary Chair Anitere Flores of Miami will host the 3 p.m. Jan. 10 hearing "designed to provide senators with a factual framework (lulz) for evaluating and debating immigration policy proposals during the 2011 Regular Session,” a press release says.
City Hall
300 South Adams Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-891-0000
Palm City
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 2011
6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
CUMMINGS LIBRARY
2551 SW Matheson Ave., Palm City, Florida
Deadline to sign up to speak at this town hall meeting is this Wednesday January 5 (Contact Representative Snyder’s district office at (772) 221-4904 or kimberly.brown@myfloridahouse.gov
Representative William Snyder will hold a town hall meeting to solicit public input for his proposed immigration legislation. Due to the anticipated number of speakers, three (3) minutes will be allotted per speaker.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing a special accommodation or an interpreter to participate in the proceedings should notify Kimberly Brown at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Use of the library meeting rooms does not imply library endorsement of the aims, policies, or activities of any group using the room.
Click here to "Like" the facebook page
More sources:
Haridopolos announces first immigration-reform hearing
http://www.talgov.com/
Tallahassee:
Senate Judiciary Chair Anitere Flores of Miami will host the 3 p.m. Jan. 10 hearing "designed to provide senators with a factual framework (lulz) for evaluating and debating immigration policy proposals during the 2011 Regular Session,” a press release says.
City Hall
300 South Adams Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-891-0000
Palm City
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 2011
6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
CUMMINGS LIBRARY
2551 SW Matheson Ave., Palm City, Florida
Deadline to sign up to speak at this town hall meeting is this Wednesday January 5 (Contact Representative Snyder’s district office at (772) 221-4904 or kimberly.brown@myfloridahouse.gov
Representative William Snyder will hold a town hall meeting to solicit public input for his proposed immigration legislation. Due to the anticipated number of speakers, three (3) minutes will be allotted per speaker.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing a special accommodation or an interpreter to participate in the proceedings should notify Kimberly Brown at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Use of the library meeting rooms does not imply library endorsement of the aims, policies, or activities of any group using the room.
Click here to "Like" the facebook page
More sources:
Haridopolos announces first immigration-reform hearing
http://www.talgov.com/
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Could lowering the age of retirement also aid the concerns of the G.O.P?
Senate candidates like Florida-elected Marco Rubio partly campaigned on the issue of raising the age of retirement to 70 from it's current age of 65-67. Another complaint reverberating from his supporters, though, is that state workers jobs are overly protected and held by under-qualified employees due to seniority. What if there were a way to make jobs more available, tighten the labor market and increase Social Security income?
It's speculated that lowering the retirement age could be a more powerful stimulus. Current baby boomers (including state employees) would be dismissed, while work will open up for college and high school graduates that can't find jobs. Graduates can pay off their student loans sooner and if fewer people are searching for jobs the labor market tightens, which creates higher wages. Higher wages rakes in higher tax revenues; income which would pay for Social Security. The incentive for retirement is to increase benefits by 10-20%, equating benefits with America's inflation rate.
A reasonable explanation, so why is it the GOP continues to tout the opposite?
Nicholas Ruiz on lowering the retirement age in this 2010 debate
It's speculated that lowering the retirement age could be a more powerful stimulus. Current baby boomers (including state employees) would be dismissed, while work will open up for college and high school graduates that can't find jobs. Graduates can pay off their student loans sooner and if fewer people are searching for jobs the labor market tightens, which creates higher wages. Higher wages rakes in higher tax revenues; income which would pay for Social Security. The incentive for retirement is to increase benefits by 10-20%, equating benefits with America's inflation rate.
A reasonable explanation, so why is it the GOP continues to tout the opposite?
Nicholas Ruiz on lowering the retirement age in this 2010 debate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)