The "fiscal cliff," or compromise does not mean making the other guy give you everything you want...

I have been hearing a lot about the 'fiscal cliff" lately, and a lot of it smells like manure.

The worst offenders are those trying to blame democrats, saying that it is because of their "irresponsible spending," which comes as a surprise,  since the republicans have had a pretty tight control over congress for as long as I can remember.  If the problem was merely convincing the democrats to cooperate, the problem would have been solved years ago, since they are the ones that have repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise.

On the other hand, the republicans have not only been unwilling to compromise, but have been obstructionist twelve out of the last twenty years, even going so far as to start rambling about impeaching President Obama before he was inaugurated for his first term. I will repeat that, they were talking about impeaching him before he even took office. yet they are the ones complaining about a "lack of compromise."

I am willing to believe that they might mean well, but to suggest that the party that has been willing to negotiate is the one that is not cooperating suggests either that the republicans do not understand that compromise means that both groups have to make concessions, or that they are so arrogant that they believe that they can get away with running the country into the ground for a third time.

Then again, there does seem to ba an issue with people remembering their shenanigans, since there was little uproar the second time they did it, when they dragged their feet on the issue of a federal budget until the government almost shut down for a second time, or that people forgot that they were the party so intent upon forcing Clinton out of office that the federal government did shut down for a few days.

Personally, I hope we "go over the fiscal cliff," and it ruins the republican party. They have lost any sense of what their party is supposed to be about. They keep talking about the president as if he is some sort of felon, but fail to own up to the fact that they are the ones who have shown that they are willing to ruin the country in order to promote their agenda.

Animate Vs. Inanimate.

After the latest school shooting and the obligatory politicking, I fee the need to explain the difference between animate and inanimate objects, since there are so many people that blame the incident on firearms.

animate objects are things like people and animals. They are called animate because they are able to act on their own.

Inanimate objects, on the other hand, are things like computers, cars and rifles. They are unable to do anything without something causing them to do so.

This leads to the first of my two main issues with the reaction to the latest shooting:

Blaming inanimate objects.

Since firearms are inanimate, this means they are also unable to load or fire themselves. Since they are unable to fire themselves, it is ridiculous to believe that they could cause someone to decide to fire them, as that is a task that is far more difficult than firing themselves. Yet, there are many that think that the availability of firearms is the causal factor in the shootings.

That is as reasonable as saying that the availability of spoons makes people fat.

Which leads to problem number two:

scapegoating as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.


The reasons for these mass shootings are many, and are complex, but a recurring theme is poor mental health. But this part of the puzzle receives little attention, in part because sensationalism, and partly because of those who use these shootings as a means of promoting an agenda that requires scaremongering.

One problem with their "solution" is that it will not work, as the goal of these shooters is not shooting, but hurting others, shooting is merely the means to that end.
restrictions on firearm ownership will only be effective in controlling "gun violence" if they are completely banned, and no firearms are available. Since we all know how good the government is at enforcing bans of other items, this proposal seems not only doomed to failure from its conception, but will serve to create another criminal underclass to take advantage of the demand. Even if there was a way to ban firearms effectively, and such a ban did eliminate violent crimes committed with firearms, it still would not work because the problem has not been addressed:

Some people are Violently insane, are not taking meds to take care of their violent insanity, and they decide that committing violent acts against others is an acceptable thing to do. This is the problem. Instead of listening to assholes who use these tragic incidents as an excuse to further their agenda based on the idea that an inanimate object is the problem. We need to use reason, and find ways to ensure that those who suffer mental illness receive treatment. Anything less than that is foolish and criminal.