LOGIC (n.) from Greek 'logikos': 1. Anything posted on this blog. 2. Anything that drives a liberal crazy

Monday, October 16, 2006

Crap! Craps!

Sometimes Bob Frantz is nuts. Most of the time, he's a pretty smart guy, preaching "CS, not BS." (Common Sense). This morning he made mincemeat of Senator Voinovich in an interview about Ohio Issue 3. (The link is the first hour podcast of the show. Scroll to the middle of the podcast for the start of the interview.)

One thing I found particularly laughable, was that Sen. Voinovich said that the casino operators would keep 61% of the money. He said it incredulously, too. Hello!! It's a BUSINESS. I'm surprised they're giving up 39%. Ask any other business owner about keeping only 61% of the money. They'll probably ask you if you used to live in the USSR, comrade. Aside from that, the main argument against this proposal is that it will create (supposedly) 109,000 new addicts in the State of Ohio. I'm gonna tell you why that's quite a specious argument. Let me first say that I personally will not vote in favor of Issue 3. I think it's poorly written, and the campaign was so shady, that I'm not sure people like that should be running casinos. Now, here's why the "addict" card doesn't play.

109,000 new addicts are predicted. Assuming the normal governmental margin of error, this actually means anywhere from 10 addicts - 86 billion addicts. For simplicity's sake, let's use 109,000. This is just a shade under 1% of the population. It makes no sense to prevent something because it affects 1% of the population. Nationwide, 5.7% of the population 12 and older are considered alcoholics. So should we ban alcohol? No! Why not? Well, besides the fact that I'm UAC Lutheran, it's very simple. Alcohol, like almost anything else is something responsible people can enjoy in moderation. The same is true of gambling. If someone has disposable income, they're free to spend it how they want to. What's the difference between spending $600 for a new TV, and spending $600 in a casino on a day trip?

2)Addicts destroy families. That's true. So can dads who ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Or drive without a seatbelt. (See my post on that here, if you haven't already -- it's the second one down) Regardless, the government is NOT the head of the family. It's not their job. The same points I made regarding seatbelt laws generally apply here. I'm too lazy to retype them. :-)

New addicts will be created with 'x' miles of the casino. This probably isn't even likely. If someone is addicted to gambling, they'll find a way to do it. If you don't put a casino in their backyard, they'll build one. Or they'll go on the internet. Or they'll drive 3 hours in (just about) any direction to get to one. If you have time, I highly recommend you listen to the podcast above. Bob Frantz does a good job tearing up the opposition. I'd also like it duly noted that I think Sen. Voinovich has generally done a pretty good job in the Senate. It's just this issue he's wrong on.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Let's play "GTD"

Can you guess the denomination of these church signs?

Forgiveness is a choice, but not an option.

Ch rch. It's not the same without U.

God is Love. Are you?

Sign broken. Stop in for message.

If we say we have no sin, WE'RE WRONG!

Here are your choices: Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Non-Denom, and Presbyterian. All are represented once. Extra credit for ranking them in order from most useful to least.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Arm them all!

On Chaplain to the World's blog, he suggested that arming bank tellers would have prevented the horrible incident yesterday at Charter One Bank in Euclid.

Let's take the idea futher. How about allowing guns on airplanes for licensed, trained citizens, as well as the flight attendants. (Normally, I don't like the idea of training requirements, but in the confines of an airplane, it's probably a good idea.)

How about teachers?

How about church workers?

As it stands now, a bank that has a "no carry" sign is asking for trouble. That means that the only people who are going to bring guns in are criminals. Law abiding concealed carry permit holders will obey the sign. Regardless of what you do, criminals will bring guns. So, the "no carry" sign might as well say "criminal protection zone". Which would you rather have if you're a bank teller? Criminals only, or criminals and the "good guys"?

It's the same thing on airplanes. I know that it's very difficult for a terrorist to sneak guns/bombs/kinves onto a plane, but it's not impossible. Wouldn't you want to fly knowing that, in the unlikely case that someone has brought a weapon aboard with evil intentions, you can defend yourself? Or others can defend you? I would.

The recent rash of school shootings is another example. Teachers should be trained and armed, just in case. I've heard it argued that this is a bad idea, because then there would be a shootout around the children! That's specious. Again, which would you rather have? Criminals doing all the shooting, or teachers who can neutralize the threat?


Friday, October 13, 2006

The other shoe

SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't read the post below, read that *first*!!!!

You know what the news is. In a minute, you're going to hear.........the rest of the story.

First, the thought of the day answer (see Thought of the Day on the sidebar): The unstoppable force cannot collide with the immovable object, because they can't both occur in the same existance. If there is an "unstoppable force", there cannot be an "immovable object" and vice versa.

And now........the rest of the story.

Let me try and guess the emotions (!!the 'e' word!!) of some of you, reading my plan. Outrage, shock, etc. Right?

Well, save for point #10, which is "unofficial law", the plan I gave you was taken directly from Mexican immigration law.

[insert innocent smile from me]

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

My proposals for immigration reform

I got to thinking. I came up with a 10 point plan for immigration reform. Tell me what you think.

  1. Only allow people if they can contribute to the progress of the country.
  2. Only allow people who can financially support themselves and their dependents.
  3. Kick them out if they're unhealthy -- mentally or physically.
  4. Create a National Population Register that will keep track of every single person in the country, including citizens, immigrants, etc. When someone is born, add their name. When someone dies, take it off. This also includes giving everyone a "tracking number", or perhaps a National ID card.
  5. If anyone marries an immigrant just to get them citizenship, they will go to prison for 5 years.
  6. If someone is deported, and they attempt to reenter, jail them for 10 years.
  7. For illegal entry: 2 years in prison, and a $300-$5000 fine.
  8. Fine airlines who bring illegals into the country.
  9. Don't allow foriegners the 1st ammendment right of free speech. They may not talk about or express any opinion of politics in public. They can't demonstrate, either.
  10. Allow police officers to beat, rape and otherwise mistreat any non-U.S. Citizen. If they can't prove they're American, it's fair game for the police.

So, what are your thoughts? Bring it on!

Bonus!! Have you read the thought of the day? Do you know the answer?