J.P. Cola

 
Posts from March 2013


casd

Remember the weeks after the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, and the fever, both on the state and federal side, to pass gun control legislation? Today the U.S. Senate rejected a ban on military style assault rifle look-alikes, and the Minnesota House is rejecting just about every bill, including a universal background check measure. The NRA believes it could lead to universal registration, where the government will know everyone who has legally obtained a gun. But they'll never know who has them illegally. Meanwhile, in New York, they are moving to get rid of frisking of people police stop because some think it leads to or stems from racial profiling. If you want to reduce gun violence, here's how you do it...instead of spending thousands of hours examining the rare school shootings that might kill a total of 30 people nation wide each year from some psycho who may or may not have gotten their guns legally, look at, for example the 532 people murdered in President Obama's hometown of Chicago in 2012, or the 10,000 or so firearms murders in the U.S. every year. Look at each mundane murder that happens every day, and when a person is convicted, find out how he or she got his or her weapon, and attack from that angle. How much do you want to bet that most were done with guns that were stolen or obtained illegally...meaning in violation of existing laws. Why not enforce existing laws and prevent the types of murders that occur every day instead of focusing on the handful of headline-inducing massacres? In a way, it's racism, because the headline murders usually involve white victims and white psycho killers. To only go after those crimes is like saying we don't care about the young black or hispanic men and women that get murdered every day in every city and state in the U.S.

 
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Topics: Law_CrimeSocial Issues
Social:
Locations: ChicagoNew York
People: Obama




 
Minimum wage laws are re-distribution of wealth
On Legislative Review last weekend, the subject of raising the state's minimum wage came up. One area lawmaker suggested by taking more money from upper income earners, presumably the owners of Minnesota businesses, and putting it in the pockets of entry level workers, the economy will prosper because he said the super rich cannot possibly spend all their money, but if they give more to their poor workers with a minimum wage increase, the poor will buy things and pump up the economy. That is nothing short of re-distribution of wealth, ordered by the government. Basically taking the money earned by those who took the risks and used their talents to build a successful business and created jobs and giving it to those who apparently aspire to do nothing more than earn the absolute minimum. If the government is going to do that, why not make everyone equal? Why not forbid the owners of a company from making a single cent more than the very least of their employees? On paper, that may sound like a liberal's most pleasant dream, but where would the incentive be for anyone to go through all the risk and work of starting a business? Okay, if no one wants to start a business, how about the government taking it all over and creating factories for needed items and hire people to run the factories? Do we want to have a nation where no one aspires to earn more than the minimum, and do we want to enable them them just barely scrape by? How about having a society where people are motivated to get an education and an occupation where they can earn more than the minimum. Yes, it's true that the fatest of fat cats with the biggest of companies earn exponentially more than their typical workers, but those are the exceptions, not the rule, but those who wish to redistribute wealth in this country hold them up as examples of what's wrong, not what's right with this country. Instead of being inspired by them, some would rather lead them to the guillotine.
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Topics: Labor
Social:
Locations: Minnesota




 
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
No Tags Found !
Archives